OT of OT: Rating Fyron -- no longer possible

[mac5732]

Throughout our History, Religion has caused more wars then any other reason all through history. Religion did stagnate growth of the sciences during periods past, however, it also provided scienintific growth indirectly in some areas due to those same wars and violent times, ie; mostly in regards to warfare, weapons, tactics, designs, etc.

And yes Igiboo (sorry on spelling) is correct on the human termonology, once again, our translation and beliefs caused certain aspects of religion to be translated sometimes the way we want or to mean what we intend and not was actually stated or written. When we come across a new lost language, we are the ones who end up translating it the way we believe, this does not mean that is what is actually being said

just some ideas mac

[Rigelian]

There are many examples, I just can't think of most of them at the moment. Copernicus' radical theory that the Sun was the center of the universe instead of the Earth was rejected by proponents of the Catholic Church, amonst other highly religious people of the times. Of course, the Church was not as adamant about burning all who questioned it at the stake as it was centuries prior. And as the Church was wrong about some of the most basic facts about the universe, people making scientific progress would naturally have to question some of the Church's claims (such as the Earth being the center of the universe).

I'd add Giordano Bruno to your list there. He actaully was burned at the stake. Galileo is an interesting case, because he is often used as the archetypal 'scientist against the church' example, and a heroic figure to atheists (like myself). Unfortunately for that simplistic view, Galilieo was a lifelong devout Catholic; he argued, unsuccessfully in his lifetime, that the church should not pronounce on matters of (yet unproven) physical realities. He was worried about the authority and dignity of the church being diminished when the truth was revealed, in time, by careful experimenters like himself.

This is a view that the church eventually came to share, and pronounced only on ethical/moral matters that are not subject to direct proof, characterised as 'God's domain'. Recent advances in human reproductive science/cloning etc have become the object of such ethical/moral condemnation, as science moves into what is still regarded as 'God's domain'. In Galileo's time the position of the sun and earth was regarded as unquestioningly within that domain.

An interesting potential 'clash' in the near future could be if a biological basis for homosexuality is proven, the church having pronounced pretty unambiguously on that one!

[disabled]

My statement wasn't that man killed god, but that god is less perfect than man. Really, this is evolution in practice.

Perhaps this line is better.

God creates man in his image.
Man exceeds god's original design.
God grows jealous & threatened, tries to smite man.
God, being less advanced life, fails.
Man is victorious.
Man creates Superior Man in his image.
Superior Man exceeds man's original design.
Man grows jealous & threatened, tries to exterminate Superior Man.
Man, being less advanced, fails.
Superior Man is victorious.
Superior Man creates AI in his image.
AI exceeds Superior Man's original design.
Superior Man grows jealous & threatened, tried to destroy AI
AI is victorious.

It is my opinion god is less superior to man as a perfect being is incapable of creating an imperfect being.

Fyron, here's the best example I know of.

In 391 common era, one of the largest terrorist attacks in the history of mankind unfolds. The Library of Alexandria is burned and along with it several thousand years of human history, entire wings dedicated to Plato, Homer, and more and not to mention several hundred years of technological advances stored solely at that point.

Another is terrible part of history is stained glass windows. Many people don't see how horrible these simple things are, but when you realize the fact these were made because the common people were not educated (education controlled by the church no less) they used these windows to provide pictures of the stories being told. Also, since the church at that time only did sermons in Latin and only about 1/10th of the people spoke Latin, things were even further controlled.

The most dangerous science is that of language, for it defines our minds.

Of course, there are worse. Many Islamic nations I've labeled as "technological voids" because they crefuse to move forward except in military technology. They reject practical, useful technology for the general people and keep only the worst. But then again, Ignorance is Bliss....

It is very sad that the only area Mankind has truely advanced forward in is that of death, murder, and genocide. Other technologies pale in comparison when the military application is seen.

The greatest weakness of humanity is only three little items. Language, Blood, and Faith. It is only until we overcome these three can humanity stand a chance to hold a line against itself.

[jimbob]

Errr...

I know that everyone since about oh, I guess a few hundred years ago now, are of the opinion that Galileo = good scientist and the Church = bad anti-scientists. However, the Chruch WAS science at that time. Universities were not controlled by the church, Universities (and the studies that happened with in them) were the church. To view it otherwise is IMnotsoHO simply a post-modern recreation of the social reality of that time.

That said, the "church fathers" who condemned Galileo were not condeming without reason. Their challenge was that his data was simply not rigourous enough to overthrow the overwhelmingly accepted science of the era, which indicated that the earth was indeed the centre of the universe. If his data had only been massaged the right way, it might have even been convincing (however, this is not to say that the other scientists/church fathers would have accepted or denied the data - that would be so hypothetical that it would only amount to hopeful interpretation or even slander either way).

It did happen later, that someone (his name eludes me at the moment) did massage the data in an approriate way. By attaching said Galilean data to eliptical orbits rather than Galileo's circular orbits, did the concept of a helio-centric solar system finally make good scientific sense. Until that point, helio-certrism was accepted on the basis of a faith that the simpler (though unsubstantiated) system was more likely to be correct. Note: this is not an Occam's razor arguement, because Occam's says that "all things being equal, the simplest Version is likely the more accurate". In this case, the simplest Version was not equal, because the math was way to difficult preceding the elipse.

Of course, it's easier to just say that church = bad, Galileo = enlightened in those Jr/Sr Highschool text books

[disabled]

But then again, the Church had no evidence beyond "We Say So"

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Iggiboo:
But then again, the Church had no evidence beyond "We Say So"

Exactly.

The Church was only science because they condemned all real scientists as heretics.

[Rigelian]

That said, the "church fathers" who condemned Galileo were not condeming without reason. Their challenge was that his data was simply not rigourous enough to overthrow the overwhelmingly accepted science of the era, which indicated that the earth was indeed the centre of the universe. If his data had only been massaged the right way, it might have even been convincing (however, this is not to say that the other scientists/church fathers would have accepted or denied the data - that would be so hypothetical that it would only amount to hopeful interpretation or even slander either way).

You are saying that Galileos theories were rejected on scientific grounds? Not so; they were rejected because if accepted as literally true they would have contradicted already-stated church doctrine. The church was quite prepared to allow Galileos methods to be used in navigational charts etc, as long as they were only viewed as mathematical constructs that conveniently reached accurate conclusions.

It did happen later, that someone (his name eludes me at the moment) did massage the data in an approriate way. By attaching said Galilean data to eliptical orbits rather than Galileo's circular orbits, did the concept of a helio-centric solar system finally make good scientific sense. Until that point, helio-certrism was accepted on the basis of a faith that the simpler (though unsubstantiated) system was more likely to be correct. Note: this is not an Occam's razor arguement, because Occam's says that "all things being equal, the simplest Version is likely the more accurate". In this case, the simplest Version was not equal, because the math was way to difficult preceding the elipse.

But even with the complication of the elliptical orbit (and the oribit of the earth is not dramatically elliptical) the heliocentric explanation was way superior to the alternatives. Take the retrograde motion of Mars for example; this is easily explained by the Earth 'catching' up Mars because of our shorter orbital period. Previous explanations had required ludicrously-contrived and complex scenarios with multiple interconnected spheres and who knows what else. The heliocentric explanation certainly did meet the Occams razor test there.

Galileo provides us with another analogy (taken from the Dava Sobel book). When Galileo did his experiment with a heavy and light ball dropped from a tower, there was of course a slight difference in the time taken to fall, the heavier ball taking slightly less time. Galileo correctly attributed this to air resistance. What frustrated him at the time was that his doubters, who had predicted the heavy ball falling several times faster than the lighter, siezed upon this small difference as disproving Galileo entirely. I put it to you that the elliptical/circular orbits fall into this Category. Incidentally I think it was Kepler who got it right in the end.

Though Galileos support of the Copernical heliocentric theory is well-publicised, what was just as significant was his discovery of moons around Jupiter. This had massive theological implications, because of the distinction between the 'pure' heavens (with planets, stars etc) and the 'base' earth.

The real conflict was between the old world view, based on argument from authority, and Galileos groundbreaking approach which placed the EVIDENCE above all other considerations. This is why he is regarded as the father of modern science. Today it seems ludicrous to us that noone had (for example) thought to test whether heavy and light objects would fall at the same rate. It was just too intuitively obvious to them to even question it.

There is a play by Bertold Brecht about the life of Galileo, in which a group of church elders arrive at his house to debate his theories. Regardless of the (dubious) historical accuracy of this, the key scene is where Galileo is begging the churchmen to just look through his telescope and see the moons of Jupiter for themselves. They refuse, preferring to sit down and have a theological debate about the perfect spheres or some such. This actually gets a laugh from the audience - how could they be so stupid? But it is a superb illustration of this complete shift in perspective.

In the modern scientific system, if a theory is contradicted by the evidence then it is WRONG. Simply wrong. No matter that Plato or Aristotle (or Newton or Einstein for that matter) believed it to be true. The argument from authority is back where it came from, and where it belongs - in the realm of superstition and religion.