For Reality Check

[moreta]

...But science is a process that does over time radically change the religious perspective. ...

You're right about that. I had the opportunity to briefly observe an open heart surgery. because of that, I developed a deeper awe and a greater respect for the Creator God who could cram all that stuff into such a small space.

[lilpixieofterror]

Well, there are those Christians or other religious people that deal with scientific discoveries by interpreting them in a particular way, so keeping God in the picture. But science is a process that does over time radically change the religious perspective. Think about Galileo being persecuted by the Chatholic Church over heliocentrism beginning around 1610 and perhaps ending with the pope's apology in 2000.

That's a very simplistic view of what really happened and I would advise that you read more upon it before making such ignorant statements. In short, Galileo was asked, by the pope nonetheless, to write a book discussing the merits of heliocentric vs geocentrism and instead he pretty much bit the hand that fed him and insulted not only those that disagreed with him, but the Pope himself. The problem in 1610 is that there wasn't any strong evidence to support heliocentric or to support the view that the earth was rotating (interesting, the first evidence beyond celestial observations was Foucault pendulum, which is an experiment that took place in 1851). Likewise, Galileo insulted the academic community and they likewise supported the RCC's case against Galileo. If Galileo would have been more political and less of a jerk, he would have done much better. The lesion we should learn from Galileo is not religion vs science (as the myth seems to imply it is), but don’t bite the hand that feeds and protects you.

I was very moved by Steven Weinberg's conversation with Jonathan Miller in his BBC program on the history of atheism which ended thus -

I have a friend ; or had a friend, now dead ; Abdus Salam, a very devout Muslim, who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief, and they were worried about it; and damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive of religious belief, and it’s a good thing too.

Steven Weinberg

Lots of people have bought that myth, but being a student of science I; I don't see anything that refutes religious beliefs. Sure, there are things that deal with some beliefs, but many denominations have long ago fixed their theology and dealt with those issues. It’s too bad that many people make issues that don’t exist or blow them up into larger issues than they really are.

[Soyeong]

Well, there are those Christians or other religious people that deal with scientific discoveries by interpreting them in a particular way, so keeping God in the picture. But science is a process that does over time radically change the religious perspective. Think about Galileo being persecuted by the Chatholic Church over heliocentrism beginning around 1610 and perhaps ending with the pope’s apology in 2000.

As LPoT pointed out, the conflict being only about heliocentrism is greatly overstated.

I have a friend — or had a friend, now dead — Abdus Salam, a very devout Muslim, who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief, and they were worried about it… and damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive of religious belief, and it’s a good thing too.
Steven Weinberg

As a tool, science supports neither naturalism or theism, but what is learned by it can be interpreted to support either school of thought. While followers naturalism can try to use science to show that God isn't necessary, that is an impossible task because it is beyond the scope of science to do so. Unfortunately, proponents of naturalism managed to conflate it with science to the point that people thought they needed to reject science in order to reject the false idea that science was pushing God out. So while some religious believers have become anti-science, there is no need for them to be because the division between science and religion is artificial.

New developments in science are always corrosive to our old ways of thinking, which has been universally resisted throughout history because people are resistant to change, so it is not just a Christian thing. Geocentrism was held by many people regardless of their religion, so it was not a Christian idea either, but it was good that science was corrosive to it because it was wrong. Science can be corrosive to certain interpretations of the Bible, such as the Earth being only 6000 years old, which I agree is also a good thing, but it can't be corrosive to beliefs about about the supernatural because they are beyond it's scope.

[Jedidiah]

Religious beliefs and truth are not always the same and are not mutually exclusive.

[Raphael]

Think about Galileo being persecuted by the Chatholic Church over heliocentrism beginning around 1610

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the facts of the history there rather than the hype from atheists.

http://m-francis.livejournal.com/196...thread=1138001

Recall that Pope Urban had encouraged Galileo to write a book comparing the systems of the world, listing the strengths and weaknesses of each. What he got was an advocacy for the Copernican system that ignored some vital objections and a satire of a Ptolemaic model which had already been abandoned by Aristotelians. The phases of Venus had decisively falsified the basic Ptolemaic model, but were equally well explained by the Copernican and the Tychonic models. The Tychonic model (and the related Ursine model) were the most popular among scientists by the time Galileo wrote the Dialogue, but he does not so much as mention them, let alone refute them. As it turned out, it was the Keplerian model, with its elliptical orbits, that turned out to be correct. Riccioli's book is more like what the Pope had in mind. Not until there was empirical evidence to choose one model over the other could you say it was fact; and that evidence was not forthcoming until the late 1700s and early 1800s.
....
1. He wasn't. He didn't even sign off on the Summary. It was the consensus of the physicists that geocentrism was settled science; but Galileo wanted to be taken on faith. Bellarmine told him not to teach Copernicanism as proven fact unless he had the facts to prove it. Technically, he was convicted of violating Bellarmine's injunction -- and that came about because of the Letter to Castelli, in which Galileo explained how scriptures would have to be interpreted in light of his unproven hypothesis. In the middle of the Protestant Revolution (not to mention the kick-off of the Thirty-Years War) this was an impolitic thing to do. Mathematicians weren't authorized to interpret scriptures.

2. The Pope asked him to write the book. Show both systems and the pro and con arguments for each; but don't say something is proven when it is not. And by the way, here are some of my own ideas. Remember, Urban and Galileo were friends, and Urban had earlier (as cardinal) stood up for Galileo when he had been criticized. So when Pope saw his own arguments put in the mouth of "the Simpleton," he was honked off. And when he saw that the decks were stacked in the book, he was even more honked off. A determined social-climber like Galileo probably did not intend to insult his old friend, and he likely thought the Argument of the Tides did clinch things for the motion of the earth, but not even other Copernicans bought into it. (The tides are caused by the moon somehow, not by the spinning of the earth.)

In the years leading up to the trial, the most immobile object on Earth was Galileo in his villa. He didn't leave it, wouldn't travel. So his house arrest made him do what he had been inclined to do on his own. It was a face-saving arrangement for the prosecution, which was embarrassed because the whole affair had snowballed out of control. Today we would call it a plea-bargain.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

God is within the universe as being the cause of every place in the universe and no part of the universe can contain Him. He is actively always causing the existence of the universe. (And everything else that exists.)

[Sparko]

God is within the universe as being the cause of every place in the universe and no part of the universe can contain Him. He is actively always causing the existence of the universe. (And everything else that exists.)

surely not the ponies??

[Jedidiah]

God is not in the universe in the sense that He is a part of the universe as are we.

[Xru]

Can't let this thread die!

[Jedidiah]

In a very real sense one might accurately say that God does not exist. He is in fact the thing that makes existence. All that exists is because He has and is making it so.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

surely not the ponies??

The ponies are a supreme proof that God is good.

[Soyeong]

The ponies are a supreme proof that God is good.

I'd say it's more proof that God has a sense of humor.

[Manwë Súlimo]

I'm pretty sure it's convincing proof for the atheist position.

[Raphael]

I'd say it's more proof that God has a sense of humor.

You're thinking of the Duck-billed Platypus.

[moreta]

I'd say it's more proof that God has a sense of humor.

You're thinking of the Duck-billed Platypus.

Or having rain fall every day of Vacation Bible School.