Posted on 01/25/2009 2:49:18 PM PST by NYer
We find this war advertised in many of the leading atheist tracts such as those by Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Every few months one of the leading newsweeklies does a story on this subject. Little do the peddlers of this paradigm realize that they are victims of nineteenth-century atheist propaganda.
About a hundred years ago, two anti-religious bigots named John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White wrote books promoting the idea of an irreconcilable conflict between science and God. The books were full of facts that have now been totally discredited by scholars. But the myths produced by Draper and Dickson continue to be recycled. They are believed by many who consider themselves educated, and they even find their way into the textbooks. In this article I expose several of these myths, focusing especially on the Galileo case, since Galileo is routinely portrayed as a victim of religious persecution and a martyr to the cause of science.
The Flat Earth Fallacy: According to the atheist narrative, the medieval Christians all believed that the earth was flat until the brilliant scientists showed up in the modern era to prove that it was round. In reality, educated people in the Middle Ages knew that the earth was round. In fact, the ancient Greeks in the fifth century B.C. knew the earth was a globe. They didn’t need modern science to point out the obvious. They could see that when a ship went over the horizon, the hull and the mast disappear at different times. Even more telling, during an eclipse they could see the earth’s shadow on the moon. Look fellas, it’s round!
Huxley’s Mythical Put-Down: We read in various books about the great debate between Darwin’s defender Thomas Henry Huxley and poor Bishop Wilberforce. As the story goes, Wilberforce inquired of Huxley whether he was descended from an ape on his father or mother’s side, and Huxley winningly responded that he would rather be descended from an ape than from an ignorant bishop who was misled people about the findings of science. A dramatic denouement, to be sure, but the only problem is that it never happened. There is no record of it in the proceedings of the society that held the debate, and Darwin’s friend Joseph Hooker who informed him about the debate said that Huxley made no rejoinder to Wilberforce’s arguments.
Darwin Against the Christians: As myth would have it, when Darwin’s published his Origin of Species, the scientists lined up on one side and the Christians lined up on the other side. In reality, there were good scientific arguments made both in favor of Darwin and against him. The British naturalist Richard Owen, the Harvard zoologist Louis Agassiz, and the renowned physicist Lord Kelvin all had serious reservations about Darwin’s theory. Historian Gertrude Himmelfarb points out that while some Christians found evolution inconsistent with the Bible, many Christians rallied to Darwin’s side. Typical was the influential Catholic journal Dublin Review which extravagantly praised Darwin’s book while registering only minor objections.
The Experiment Galileo Didn’t Do: We read in textbooks about how Galileo went to the Tower of Pisa and dropped light and heavy bodies to the ground. He discovered that they hit the ground at the same time, thus refuting centuries of idle medieval theorizing. Actually Galileo didn’t do any such experiments; one of his students did. The student discovered what we all can discover by doing similar experiments ourselves: the heavy bodies hit the ground first! As historian of science Thomas Kuhn points out, it is only in the absence of air resistance that all bodies hit the ground at the same time.
Galileo Was the First to Prove Heliocentrism: Actually, Copernicus advanced the heliocentric theory that the sun, not the earth, is at the center, and that the earth goes around the sun. He did this more than half a century before Galileo. But Copernicus had no direct evidence, and he admitted that there were serious obstacles from experience that told against his theory. For instance, if the earth is moving rapidly, why don’t objects thrown up into the air land a considerable distance away from their starting point? Galileo defended heliocentrism, but one of his most prominent arguments was wrong. Galileo argued that the earth’s regular motion sloshes around the water in the oceans and explains the tides. In reality, tides have more to do with the moon’s gravitational force acting upon the earth.
|
In reality, the Church was the leading sponsor of the new science and Galileo himself was funded by the church. The leading astronomers of the time were Jesuit priests. |
The Church Dogmatically Opposed the New Science: In reality, the Church was the leading sponsor of the new science and Galileo himself was funded by the church. The leading astronomers of the time were Jesuit priests. They were open to Galileo’s theory but told him the evidence for it was inconclusive. This was the view of the greatest astronomer of the age, Tyco Brahe. The Church’s view of heliocentrism was hardly a dogmatic one. When Cardinal Bellarmine met with Galileo he said, “While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still, if there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe…and that the sun goes not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.” Galileo had no such proofs.
Galileo Was A Victim of Torture and Abuse: This is perhaps the most recurring motif, and yet it is entirely untrue. Galileo was treated by the church as a celebrity. When summoned by the Inquisition, he was housed in the grand Medici Villa in Rome. He attended receptions with the Pope and leading cardinals. Even after he was found guilty, he was first housed in a magnificent Episcopal palace and then placed under “house arrest” although he was permitted to visit his daughters in a nearby convent and to continue publishing scientific papers.
The Church Was Wrong To Convict Galileo of Heresy: But Galileo was neither charged nor convicted of heresy. He was charged with teaching heliocentrism in specific contravention of his own pledge not to do so. This is a charge on which Galileo was guilty. He had assured Cardinal Bellarmine that given the sensitivity of the issue, he would not publicly promote heliocentrism. Yet when a new pope was named, Galileo decided on his own to go back on his word. Asked about this in court, he said his Dialogue on the Two World Systems did not advocate heliocentrism. This is a flat-out untruth as anyone who reads Galileo’s book can plainly see. Even Galileo’s supporters, and there were many, found it difficult to defend him at this point.
What can we conclude from all this? Galileo was right about heliocentrism, but we know that only in retrospect because of evidence that emerged after Galileo’s death. The Church should not have tried him at all, although Galileo’s reckless conduct contributed to his fate. Even so, his fate was not so terrible. Historian Gary Ferngren concludes that “the traditional picture of Galileo as a martyr to intellectual freedom and as a victim of the church’s opposition to science has been demonstrated to be little more than a caricature.” Remember this the next time you hear some half-educated atheist rambling on about “the war between religion and science.”
Nonsense, you made a statement, now back it up.
Jesuits are certainly not interested in what the Bible has to say about anything.
Says YOU.
He attempted to explain to me that because man is made in God's image then God must be a female.
If what you are saying is true, then he was wrong. However, this is certainly not represented in the Baltimore Catechism.
Here's another inconvenient fact:
NO WHERE in the New Testament does it instruct Christians to behave as Inquisitioners behaved.
Most of the folks claiming there is a war between religion and science are fundamentalists.
You just never cease with the projections do you CM?
What is the fundamental rationalization of the Church?
Why is there a Church?
Why should anyone believe in what the Church pronounces? Do you know?
I'll tell you what I was told by "Jesuits."
Ready?
It is the Resurrection!
Are you OK with that?
It was the dispensation of the Spirit that made all of the difference. There was no Ecclesia immediately after the Cross.
The "Called Out" were manifest only upon Pentecost.
I challenge you to read carefully Acts chapter 2, especially verses 37 & 38, the words of Peter (the key master).
The New Law that was promised in Jeremiah 31;13, recognized in Romans 2: 14-15., Hebrews 8;10; Hebrews 10;16; and elsewhere......
But of course, I'll have to indulge the mindless rantings of the subordinates of the Jesuit sect for all of the days of my life because clout is simply a weapon that I shall never wield.
So be it.
read later
For your information, from the Baltimore Catechism:
86. How was the Son of God made man?The Son of God was conceived and made man by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
87. When was the Son of God conceived and made man?
The Son of God was conceived and made man on Annunciation Day, the day on which the Angel Gabriel announced to the Blessed Virgin Mary that she was to be the Mother of God.
125. Which are the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost?
The seven gifts of the Holy Ghost are: wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord.
And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him; the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of godliness. And he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord. (Isaiah 11:2-3)
bfl
If you have nothing productive to say, please don't post to me.
I cannot find the term "Annunciation Day" in the Bible.
I cannot find the term "Mother of God" in the Bible.
Does God have a mother?
I can find gifts of the Spirit, but perhaps I read too much.
This is an excellent post, djf! Thanks ever so much for the ping! I’m a little engaged with another project right at the moment; but I’ll come back here and see what’s developed just as soon as I can.
Why is there a Church?
Perhaps you missed these little tidbits from the Bible:
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church. and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.I could have included many others. I suggest that you read the Acts of the Apostles to see the early life of the church established upon the apostles by our Lord Jesus Christ.
–Matt. 16:18And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
–Matt. 18:17Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
–Acts 20:28
It is curious to me that rational folks can read the same stuff and come up with different conclusions.
I think that one distinction is that though reasonable people will sometimes disagree, it is incumbent upon them to maintain civility.
D’accord?
Oh, do not be so silly. "Annunciation Day" is the day on which the Angel Gabriel announced to the Blessed Virgin Mary that she was to be the Mother of God. This happened on some day, why complain about what we call it?
I cannot find the term "Mother of God" in the Bible.
Does God have a mother?
Jesus is God. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Therefore Mary is the Mother of God. This does not mean that Mary is the mother of Jesus' divinity but only that she is the mother of the one person Jesus who is both God and man. "Does God have mother?" Jesus is God and he has a mother, Mary, so the answer is yes.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/duhem.htm
“In reality, science as a discipline was stillborn in Greece after Aristotle’s death, long before Christianity came on the scene. If any discipline has been “flawed” due to religious reasons, it’s the history of science. You see, the information about Buridan and Oresme was suppressed for years at the behest of certain elements of the French government, because it indicated a Christian origin of science. The case was notorious in France in the 50’s, (when the info was finally released) and my philosophy advisor (an atheist and Marxist scholar) told me that it was used in French universities of the time as a prime example of government censorship (after I brought it up in class). Here’s the story ...”
Remain civil, but of course. But I am curious how you could rationally deny the existence of the church when it is clearly described in the Bible.
So then (according to you) God has a mother.
Does God also have a father?
Does God have sisters and brothers?
Ultimately we are headed toward “the mystery” aspects of God in any such discussion. You have no place else to go.
That is not what the Bible is about when I read it.
The Bible is about revelation.
You are logically compelled to deny that when we get down.
The Masonic armies of Garibaldi built a statue to Bruno, for all the wrong reasons. No one really cared about some of his non theological ideas. In fact, some of them were quite popular (the idea of other inhabited worlds). It was his other issues that led him into trouble.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.