- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
That's what the Aristotelian academics and their supporters — the Catholic Church — said to Galileo when he upheld the Copernican model of the solar system.
Congratulations. You have the mindset of an unscientific religious bigot from the 16th century.
The Church, actually, conceded Galileo's point; they just wanted him to stfu. Europe was already in a chaotic state. The last thing the Church needed was yet another applecart upsetter.
That's because you don't know anything about history.
The Church followed the academics of the day in these matters, and the academics were solidly Aristotelian. It was the academics who insisted that the Earth was the center of the universe because Aristotle himself had supported that model.
In fact, there were some eminent Churchmen who supported Galileo's work in astronomy and encouraged him to publish. What got him in hot water with the Church was his politically incorrect decision to use the thinly disguised character of an early advocate of his in the role of the "dunce sidekick" in one of his scientific dialogues . . . that early advocate of his had since become Pope, and apparently didn't appreciate being cast in the role of the fool who asks the master all the appropriately simple-minded questions so that the master can enlighten both him and (of course) the reader.
"It is the great merit of Galileo that, happily combining experiment with calculation, he opposed the prevailing system according to which, instead of going directly to nature for investigation of her laws and processes, it was held that these were best learned by authority, especially by that of Aristotle, who was supposed to have spoken the last word upon all such matters, and upon whom many erroneous conclusions had been fathered in the course of time. Against such a superstition Galileo resolutely and vehemently set himself, with the result that he not only soon discredited many beliefs which had hitherto been accepted as indisputable, but aroused a storm of opposition and indignation amongst those whose opinions he discredited; the more so, as he was a fierce controversialist, who, not content with refuting adversaries, was bent upon confounding them. Moreover, he wielded an exceedingly able pen, and unsparingly ridiculed and exasperated his opponents. Undoubtedly he thus did much to bring upon himself the troubles for which he is now chiefly remembered. As Sir David Brewster (Martyrs of Science) says, "The boldness, may we not say the recklessness, with which Galileo insisted on making proselytes of his enemies, served but to alienate them from the truth."
Entire article here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.h...
Also, science in the Middle Ages, especially astronomy, was lively and practical. The problem of Easter required that astronomers reconcile the lunar and solar motions to predict the first Sunday after the first Full Moon after the First Day of Spring. Knowing 1000 years of history already, they extended their predictions far into the future ... and by 1250 knew that their models were problematic: they were off by a quarter of a day.
Mechanics also moved forward -- and Galileo's work in the 17th century rested on the Oxford Calculators of the 13th century.
More on my blog here:
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2012/...
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2013/...
For some reason, the blogspot software grabbed the entire title of the book (god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything) and made that the blog title.
I don't understand what "believe in religion" means. I suppose you mean that you know well-meaning, scientifically-minded people who believe in God (as well as, perhaps, expressing that belief by means of practicing a religion).
And I know well-meaning, scientifically-minded people — scientists, in fact — who do not "believe in religion," but who nevertheless believe that the chemical processes underlying life must have been intelligently guided, and who also believe that the physical processes underlying much of the non-living universe — the creation of carbon inside of stars, to take just one example — also required intelligent guidance.
[I don't feel the need to tear apart their beliefs as long as they aren't making scientifically falsifiable claims.]
Not sure I understand your point. As an objectivist, it seems to me that you would tear apart such beliefs to the extent they were nothing BUT mere beliefs — beliefs based on faith, rather than on evidence. But if they are not mere beliefs based on faith, but claims that can be falsified in principle, then they are valid scientific statements (not, of course, necessarily true statements; but VALID statements, scientifically), and rather than trying to "tear them apart", you should try to rationally disprove them — by falsifying them, or by proving that they entail a self-contradiction.