Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on November 12, 2005 06:26 AM
I do not see that in this letter.
In the letter, Galileo wrote:
"But nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reason and methods of operation are understandable to men. For this reason it appears that nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question, much less condemned, upon the testimony of Biblical passages . . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."
This would be fine if Galileo were merely talking about observations, but he's talking also about the theory that fits those observations. Galileo was arguing that demonstrated (proved) physical theory (such as that the earth moves) could be used to rule out certain interpretations of scripture. That would require, on our part, God-like knowledge of the universe's underlying construction, so that we can say that a theory is really true.
Unfortunately, we can never *know* that the earth moves, just as we can never prove a scientific theory true. It is possible that some advanced physical theory a million years from now could explain astronomical observations without postulating a moving earth. Those who would construct that theory in order to fit the future observations ruling out general relativity and quantum mechanics might look back on us and think that we are somewhat quaint for having thought about the world in terms of geodesics, orbits, and wave functions.
Besides, even if her had made such statement he would have been wrong. That, in turn, does not make your claims and justifications right. As any schoolkid knows, two wrongs do not make a right.
You've lost me here. As I admitted in my first post, even if the Catholic Church were right and Galileo wrong on this point of crucial philosophy, the Catholic Church still erred in her treatment of Galileo.
That screwy thinking is the basis of modern science. Besides, when science says that it considers a theory as true this *by definition* means until it is proven wrong (I was taught this in 7th grade).
The core of modern science is to invent a theory that explains all observations so far, to see what the theory would predict if it were true, and then to carry out an experiment that tests the prediction. Nowhere is there a requirement actually to believe that a scientific theory is true. Such belief is screwy, and, for example, it leads to a bunch of loud and bad arguments in "debates" over evolution. Just see anyone who thinks that natural selection has been proved true. Some conservative Christians would not be so wary of the teaching of evolution in science classrooms if it were made clear to kids that no theory can ever be proved true, not even something like natural selection, though it's the best scientific theory that we have.
We need to do better than seventh-grade-level definitions.
"Catholic" means universal/counciliar. I said nothing against the universe or councils, I spoke of the Papacy. By calling my post a "diatribe" you do not, however, "ignore" its anti-Papist nature<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
"catholic" means "universal". "Catholic" refers to the Roman Catholic Church.
Your post was a "diatribe", for it appeared to me as "a thunderous verbal attack". I strove to be accurate, not pejorative.
And I *did* pointedly and explicitly ignore your anti-Catholic remarks in order to be able honestly to say that I agree with a couple of your points. If I had not pointed out that which I ignored (for the sake of agreement), then my agreement would have implicitly included the anti-Catholic remarks, and I would have been lying.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
Maybe.
Well, I believe in One God, the Father, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ, Who is the eternally begotten Son of the Father, is one in being with the Father, is fully God, and is fully man. I believe in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son and Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified. Hopefully, that makes me Christian.
As for being scientifically inclined, my father is an endocrinologist who spent most of his career doing research on the treatment of burn patients; my mother is a professor of neuroanatomy; and I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics. At the very least, we are inclined to have scientific dinner conversation when we get together.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
It just that neither of these features of yours are detectable in your posts...
I urge you to read them more carefully.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
Even though I am not angry with you personally, I am always outraged when the Papacy is confused with the Church even though the Papacy's doctrines would have been denounced by the Church Father as heresies. The Papacy gets away with these claims only thanks to the ignorance of modern society (which it helped create).
It would not be surprising that some of the Fathers would disagree with Catholic doctrine. After all, the Fathers often disagreed with one another, and some of them (like Tertullian) were excommunicated for serious error before they died.
I hope that, by the time we are done with this thread, we shall have succeeded at least in agreeing to disagree. I am willing to believe that you follow your conscience, as you should. I hope that you can see that I follow my conscience, as I should. Persons of good will who honestly seek the truth should endeavor to agree as much as possible and to identify the fundamental sources of disagreement without recourse to inflammatory and insulting language.
I have, for example, in this message used "Catholic Church" instead of "Church" to be specific and to honor your perception.
I should ask you to refrain from using the word, "Papist", as it is little more than a slur, although references to the "papacy" are perfectly reasonable.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Try, Try Again.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 12, 2005 06:26 AMIn the letter, Galileo wrote:
"But nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reason and methods of operation are understandable to men. For this reason it appears that nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question, much less condemned, upon the testimony of Biblical passages . . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."
This would be fine if Galileo were merely talking about observations, but he's talking also about the theory that fits those observations. Galileo was arguing that demonstrated (proved) physical theory (such as that the earth moves) could be used to rule out certain interpretations of scripture. That would require, on our part, God-like knowledge of the universe's underlying construction, so that we can say that a theory is really true.
Unfortunately, we can never *know* that the earth moves, just as we can never prove a scientific theory true. It is possible that some advanced physical theory a million years from now could explain astronomical observations without postulating a moving earth. Those who would construct that theory in order to fit the future observations ruling out general relativity and quantum mechanics might look back on us and think that we are somewhat quaint for having thought about the world in terms of geodesics, orbits, and wave functions.
Besides, even if her had made such statement he would have been wrong. That, in turn, does not make your claims and justifications right. As any schoolkid knows, two wrongs do not make a right.
You've lost me here. As I admitted in my first post, even if the Catholic Church were right and Galileo wrong on this point of crucial philosophy, the Catholic Church still erred in her treatment of Galileo.
That screwy thinking is the basis of modern science. Besides, when science says that it considers a theory as true this *by definition* means until it is proven wrong (I was taught this in 7th grade).
The core of modern science is to invent a theory that explains all observations so far, to see what the theory would predict if it were true, and then to carry out an experiment that tests the prediction. Nowhere is there a requirement actually to believe that a scientific theory is true. Such belief is screwy, and, for example, it leads to a bunch of loud and bad arguments in "debates" over evolution. Just see anyone who thinks that natural selection has been proved true. Some conservative Christians would not be so wary of the teaching of evolution in science classrooms if it were made clear to kids that no theory can ever be proved true, not even something like natural selection, though it's the best scientific theory that we have.
We need to do better than seventh-grade-level definitions.
"Catholic" means universal/counciliar. I said nothing against the universe or councils, I spoke of the Papacy. By calling my post a "diatribe" you do not, however, "ignore" its anti-Papist nature<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
"catholic" means "universal".
"Catholic" refers to the Roman Catholic Church.
Your post was a "diatribe", for it appeared to me as "a thunderous verbal attack". I strove to be accurate, not pejorative.
And I *did* pointedly and explicitly ignore your anti-Catholic remarks in order to be able honestly to say that I agree with a couple of your points. If I had not pointed out that which I ignored (for the sake of agreement), then my agreement would have implicitly included the anti-Catholic remarks, and I would have been lying.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
Maybe.
Well, I believe in One God, the Father, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ, Who is the eternally begotten Son of the Father, is one in being with the Father, is fully God, and is fully man. I believe in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son and Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified. Hopefully, that makes me Christian.
As for being scientifically inclined, my father is an endocrinologist who spent most of his career doing research on the treatment of burn patients; my mother is a professor of neuroanatomy; and I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics. At the very least, we are inclined to have scientific dinner conversation when we get together.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
It just that neither of these features of yours are detectable in your posts...
I urge you to read them more carefully.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)
Even though I am not angry with you personally, I am always outraged when the Papacy is confused with the Church even though the Papacy's doctrines would have been denounced by the Church Father as heresies. The Papacy gets away with these claims only thanks to the ignorance of modern society (which it helped create).
It would not be surprising that some of the Fathers would disagree with Catholic doctrine. After all, the Fathers often disagreed with one another, and some of them (like Tertullian) were excommunicated for serious error before they died.
I hope that, by the time we are done with this thread, we shall have succeeded at least in agreeing to disagree. I am willing to believe that you follow your conscience, as you should. I hope that you can see that I follow my conscience, as I should. Persons of good will who honestly seek the truth should endeavor to agree as much as possible and to identify the fundamental sources of disagreement without recourse to inflammatory and insulting language.
I have, for example, in this message used "Catholic Church" instead of "Church" to be specific and to honor your perception.
I should ask you to refrain from using the word, "Papist", as it is little more than a slur, although references to the "papacy" are perfectly reasonable.
#