church v. science

Hey, I'm hoping someone here knows the answer to this...

OK, so when Copernicus and Galileo said that the Earth revolves around the sun, and not the sun around the Earth, and the church disagreed, why exactly did the church disagree? What was their reasoning based on? Scripture, if so which; "common sense", or some combination of the two? Some other reason?

Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

 

http://gathman.org/apologos/center.html

 

So it was based on Scripture? I'm asking this in regards to evolution...

Scripture says one thing, science another. This only causes a problem if you believe you have to take scripture literally, though. However, other scripture is meant to be taken figuratively... Revelation, for example. The dragon, the nine headed beast, the woman clothed with the sun, etc... They aren't meant to be taken literally, it's common belief that they are just representations, allegory for something else, like a union of nations, a la OPEC, NATO, the G8, etc... Not specifically, just for example.

Has the Catholic church made any pronouncements on this?

 

The last time I went near a Catholic church I ended up married. The time before that I was beaten up by a nun. I'll keep out of this.

 

I`ll probably make some new enemies but here goes. I`m a "
Show me" type. I tend to hold more faith in the scientific community than the theological. I was baptised a Catholic...but have never seen anything to prove to me that what was written in scripture is anything more than fiction. I`ve encountered thoroughly wonderful, kind and caring people that had no religious conviction to speak of. On the other hand I`ve encountered many so-called "righteous" people that were as mean and spiteful as anyone could be. That includes ordained priests, nuns, and other church affiliated folk. I`ve a handicapped brother that tends to be a bit noisy at times, and my Mother was told by a Catholic priest that if he couldn`t be quiet perhaps he should stay away from the services. Well...guess what. There are so many great fiction authors in the world, past and present. There are also very many good, proven, technical and scientific manuals. Until someone can prove to me otherwise...guess what? The Sci-Fi section at the public library is where the "Bible" or "Koran" or any other theological novel belongs. I CANNOT believe that if there is a GOD he`d advocate excluding someone for thier handicap, or advocate blowing up bus loads of kids or any other kind of intolerance or stupidity based on a so-called religion. Seems to me that lotsa folks take thier "religion" as an excuse to be self-righteous. Here`s a novel thought....be good to EVERYBODY and if there is an afterlife, and I believe in genetic engineering before I`ll believe that tripe...if there actually IS such a thing if I`m good to you, and you`re good to me, we`ll party in that mythical afterlife. Hasn`t been proven to me...

 

@Pewty...lol

beanier, this will probably be a little better read for you:

http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/gm8.htm

I think I'll leave this thread to its own direction, as I'm sure it will head down the 'disinformation superhighway' fairly quick

 

hahaha!! That's probably the funniest thing I've seen/read this week. haha!

 

Well said! Agree 100%.




-Steve

 

We must all be grateful to the Roman Catholic Church, who, although they banged up poor old Galileo and threatened to torture him, have now realised they were wrong and have forgiven him, 400 years later.

It's hard to take such a mob seriously.

 

Whelp...ever heard of the word faith?

Some have it, some don't.

 

Same could be said of schizophrenia. Perhaps I missed your point.

The Catholic Church has actually turned into a rather progressive institution, as far as religion is concerned. They've come on board saying that evolution makes sense and should be accepted, which puts them in the "slightly less crazy" category compared to many of the other fundies and thumpers running around trying to take us back to the Dark Ages.

 

Indeed you did. Perhaps you should think about the meaning of the word and why i said it, before saying something silly, like referring to a mental illness.

I said that one statement in response to Sasquatch's beliefs in Science over religion. Many things in Christianity cannot be proven, nor disproven, so the only thing that remains is unbelief, or faith.

Regarding the Catholicism comment:

What makes you think I was referring to Catholicism? I consider myself Christian, and Catholicism broke off from that long ago, IMO. The beliefs are far too different from non-catholic christian religions to be in the same branch anymore. My two cents.

 

I'm sorry, my psychic ability has been off-kilter for awhile, so it's hard for me to figure out which meaning of the word you were referring to, much less why you would choose to use it.

The Catholicism comment was not directed at you, or anyone really, but as a contribution to the original discussion which was dealing with the Catholic Church's response towards science. It's no longer the Catholics that are as big a threat to science/progress; it's the evangelical/fundamentalist Christians that are by far unique to America.

And yes, I'm aware of how many different flavors of Christianity consider themselves to be "truly" Christian while all the "others" are mistaken. The funny thing here is that very few people practicing "Christianity" in modern times have beliefs that resemble what was had in, say, 40 A.D. (For instance, there's much speculation that the majority of people who followed the teachings of Jesus did not consider him to be divine, and this was tacked on almost as an afterthought and then dissenters were killed off systematically. That's faith for you.)

And for the record, there's more evidence to believe that those who talk to invisible beings and believe they're receiving responses suffer from a mental illness, than to believe otherwise. But what is evidence compared to faith?

 

I'll exit the thread before I get hot. Some people think they know it all. I'll let you continue thinking such.

 

Though I went to church until I was like 12 years old, (baptist) I, like Sasquatch am what you call a 'show me' type person also. (agnostic, perhaps?). I started to read a lot, watched tv shows like "mysteries of the bible' and what little beliefs I had kind of went out the window. to me, the scientific explanations make more sense.
I've asked ministers, pastors etc. how can they still believe with all the scientific explanations and their answer always seems to be 'you gotta have faith'
I've been told that those of the Jewish faith believe all good people will go to heaven (believers in God or not) But that the Baptists believe that if you accept Christ as your savior, only then you will go to heaven. I'm sure other religions have different beliefs on heaven, but if there is such a place, whose religion is correct?
We've all heard about the power of prayers, or could it be mind over matter? The mind can be a very powerful thing. Doctors and scientists still don't fully understand how the brain works....
I've never encountered ghosts, (I don't believe or disbelieve that they exist)
AND some of my relatives that have passed on, have said to other family members before passing that when they got to 'heaven' they would send a sign. Well.... No one has ever received a sign from them, and some of them said they would do something specific, that there would be no doubts....
Since no signs came, that gave me even more reason to believe the scientific explanations.
I tend to think that people are afraid of dying, that when this life ends, that's it, no more.....and they can't accept that. That's how I feel worship came about. That way if they believe in God, (or whoever or whatever) they in return have eternal life. It's a nice thought......
I don't want to find out anytime soon though.....

 

I'm glad that you are not self righteous, condescending and dismissive of those you disagree with. That would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?

 

Hey, nice ad hom! Thanks for the permission, at any rate.

 

This not only holds true for so many ideas found in the numerous religions throughout the world, but also for many theories proposed in the numerous scientific fields that attempt to explain the world, and more.

The truly sad part about these science v. religion debates is that none can prosper without someone trying to make stabs at someone of opposing opinions. Simple one or two sentence quips fail to render a quality argument when we're dealing with matters of deep intellectual, psychological, and spiritual (yes, it works both ways) impact. Adryn, I've read your rantings on here for a while, and I know you're an intellectual, but you must be aware that throwing out such a grand idea as faith, then stepping away, leaves yourself open to attack from the uninitiated.

People, faith comes in all shapes and sizes. Everyone has it to some extent, regardless of its application to religion. I have faith in many things- faith that one day I'll start a family with the girl I love; faith that my career will be taking off within the next year or two; faith that there is something higher than me; faith that the universe was created in a Big Bang, and so on and so forth.

Those of you who've known me on here, know that I'm very scientifically oriented. I am also a very spiritual person. One would think the two butt heads a lot, but they really don't. With some of the recent advances in string theory, and now holographic theory, we're able to see deeper into the true structure of everything. An Everything that could not just happen to be there. Be it put there by God, Shiva, or Zeus....None of us know. But I have faith in those theories, and I have faith that they explain the intentions of a being higher than us all.


oh, by the way, hey guys! I'm back.

 

It saddens me that what started as a conversation about theological belief or disbelief has sunken to name-calling. I`ve paid taxes and am a veteran so it seems to me that by obeying US laws and defending the constitution I have a right to worship or not as I see fit, and a right to voice my opinion as well. I don`t remember when I began the thread insulting anyone intentionally, and it is WAY below me to resort to name-calling if I don`t happen to agree with them. THE GOLDEN RULE is a very viable replacement for "religion" if a person chooses to be skeptical. Like I said at the beginning, I`ve met a LOT of mean and nasty and selfish "pious" people, and met a LOT of good honest hard-working considerate and kind ones. I didn`t start this thread so folks`d get thier shorts in a bunch it just happened to be something that was on my mind.

 

BTW An intersting book on this sorta related is "The Da Vinci Code" by dan brown.

 

Can you name one place I called you a name?

Whelp...a play on the word, well....



I can assure you, as a moderator, I don't sink to such lows (anymore).

 

Close - I think you are thinking of "Angels and Demons" also by Dan Brown - this is about the Illuminati and related to the Science Vs Religion arguement very directly...

 

Well, it wasn't my intention to really get involved. I didn't think it would really blow out of proportion. I mean, faith is what it really boils down to, and I didn't really take a stab at anyone. Its something you have, or don't. Unfortunately, someone in the thread had to take such a simple comment, and, IMO, make a mockery of it.

So be it I guess, thats the nature of these threads

 

Yes but both are good reads!

 

I've been watching this one and I think you've hit the nail on the head... Everyone has a right to an oppinion, and I have mine on this subject... Im not going to sit here and voice it however because I think this sort of thing treads too closely on peoples core beliefs, which they are fully entitled to. And that should be without someone else telling them they're wrong.

Most people believe in one or the other almost mutually exclusively... and thats never going to be pretty... And I think there was a similar thread closed by the mods just last week on the same subject...

Its a hornets nest. Why aren't people mature enough to leave it alone?

 

I didn`t mean to be dismissive of anyone`s personal beliefs...just showing my own. I`d never deny anyone thier right to thier own beliefs and opinions.

 

I as a Christian do not have a problem with Christians or Non-Christians believing Evolution(I am just trying to figure it out for myself.) I just have 10 Questions about Evolution that I would like explained more thoroughly if anyone knows...Thanks.
(I do believe in "Micro-Evolution")

ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

 

Well I am Wow!!! What a debate to walk into first thing on a Monday morning and I'm not halfway down the first mug of java yet Anything could happen in my posting

I've read everything (yeah...it happens occasionally ) and I could sit and debate too. I find this topic fascinating.

But suffice to say this. I am a Christian, and I have faith in God to guide me through this journey of life. I don't have a religion.....a set of rules that I must follow in order to "believe" ...... I have a faith much deeper within me. I appreciate some of you either don't, or choose not to. That's okay too And I respect that you have a choice, as I too hope those who choose not to believe will respect my choice and opinion too. I've been in both places - staunch agnostic and now believer in Jesus, and I also know where I am going when this walk on the earthly world ends for me.

So, for what it's worth, I may not agree with those who choose not to believe, but it is your God-given right to choose. Freewill. It's what makes us all so unique And it is very simple for us all to respect each other's freewill to choose IMHO.

 

Well see, thats a contradiction in itself. Facts do not contain errors or unanswered questions. As well, theory of evolution, is a, well, theory. Theories cannot be stated as facts, and still be a theory.

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/errors.html

 

I have an open mind to scentific and religious views, and feel that neither one of them are 100% accurate. However, Darwin is something I will probably never accept, due to the holes in the theory, and numerous unanswered challenges. Yes, the same thing can be said of religion

I'm sorry, but the theory of evolution should more accurately be called the hypothesis of evolution. But I suppose that doesn't have quite the same ring

 

Well, you're all wrong. It's the flying spaghetti monster that started it all!

IMO, science != religion. They are two entirely different things. I think I'll leave it at that.

 

Sheesh...I`m pretty much agnostic...but I try to be a good s**t to everyone if I can. Another problem arises though...this whole Darwinism thing doesn`t exactly wash for me either. Now it`s boiled down to what came first...chicken or the egg?

 

The egg came first. You need an egg to get a chicken, but you don't need a chicken to get an egg.

I think that proves Darwin correct right there...

 

criminitly!
ummmmmm.....
i guess i wouldn't mind being called a young dog.
how's the research coming beanier?
lol

 

I like pancakes.

 

With butter and syrup!

I've seen so many of these types of threads that typically, turns into a all out war and causes hate and discontent amongst freinds.

For some reason this topic always ruffles the feathers of just about anyone. I personally am a Christian, but haven't "practiced" my faith in 12 years. Though, I also have been sent to private christian schools.

Just my random thoughts.

Time to get another beer.

 

Back to the original question, IMHO, I think the answer to beanier's question about why the church disagreed may have more to do with human arrogance than either religion or science, or religion vs science.

 

edited because I`m a klutz

 

Where`d you get the egg?

 

From this thread
http://www.ageekiam.com/showthread.php?t=77436

Gal

 

From something that wasn't quite a chicken...Yet.

 

Back to the original topic...

I'm not Catholic, and don't have any axe to grind or feel any need to protect "the church" here, but here goes...

Galileo was NOT put on trial simply for backing Copernicus. He published a book, with the Inquisition's permission (actually, the Commission Of Inquiry, it's formal name, which was intended to be a court, not the bloody thing it tended to be THEN), mind you, that had 3 characters debating the two world views, with a third character acting as moderator, told as a narative story, not as dry text. Unfortunately, Galileo was a fairly rude and overbearing "scientist", and stepped on a lot of toes... including the Pope's.

From a review of "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", the book that got him in hot water:

Yes, the Church was slow to embrace new ideas, and could be massively overbearing during that era, but Galileo wasn't lily white here either.

As far as faith and science today? Science is ever exploring what it thinks is reality, and tweaking and changing it's understanding of it. Evolution has a lot of fans, but also has a lot of holes, and remains firmly a theory, not a fact, and faith remains despite it.

 

Quote:

OK, so when Copernicus and Galileo said that the Earth revolves around the sun, and not the sun around the Earth, and the church disagreed, why exactly did the church disagree?

Unquote.

The church disagreed because they realised that this meant that the earth was no longer the 'centre of everything', and even more problematic for them; that people all over would get to realise this fact, and so would fly in the face of what the Catholics had been ramming down people's throats for centuries.
The ancient Egyptians and the Greeks already knew the world went around the Sun, but religious doctrines kept this from everyone for centuries afterwards...

 

I think religion was born of fear, and a lack of knowledge. Past civilizations couldn't understand their existence, or their world. A simple thunderstorm became an angry god, and sacrifices were made. Through science, we've established that storms are the result of weather patterns, and nothing to do with God's particular mood, I don't think anyone can dispute that. You would think the more we learn, the less we need religion.

However, religion is a comfort to many people. Fear of death, losing a loved one, much easier to take if you believe that person is waiting for you in Heaven, no matter how much science you read into it.

I think there's a strong possibility that science is responsible for Jesus being here, invitro fertilization for example.(I'm not religious, I don't believe in God per se, but I believe certain things took place, but not necessarily as reported). It's very possible, based on what we have learned through science to date. I'm getting close to the UFO thing here, but that's another thread.

 

OK, so, one day I was reading my handy dandy Bible. I decided to start at the beginning. It's going good, nice, God, Earth, whatever. Then, i got to the part where God made Adam and Eve. Keep inmind that they both have the same DNA. Now, what really gets me is how the hundreds of ethnicities, cultures, skin colors, and physical attributes can come from TWO people.

I am not trying to shoot a whole in anyone's faith, but I just can't wrap my mind around that.

 

Heathen! Waffles are the One True Breakfast. Repent, or be drowned for eternity in the thick syrup of retribution!

Anyway, the theory of evolution certainly has holes. What it also has is an overwhelming abundance of evidence that supports it as the most likely explaination. Not only in biology, but paleontology, geology, chemistry, etc etc. There are very, very, very few "serious" scientists who don't accept that evolution is the best theory we have so far to explain how live has come to be the way it is currently. Tomorrow we could discover something new and have to revise the theory or shelve it entirely ,this is the nature (and beauty) of science. It seeks not to state beyond a doubt what IS, but to constantly and continually falsify itself in an attempt to better understand the world and universe around us. This is the complete antithesis of dogma, but dogma never cured a disease or put a roof over man's head. It never ceases to amaze me how certain people of "faith" will accuse those who hold more stock in science of being arrogant, when it's the ones of "faith" who are claiming that something is definitely a certain way, whereas scientists are the ones continually trying to better understand it! It just boils down to some people being unable to accept that they could be wrong and ignoring any and all evidence that disagrees with their preconceived notions.

Angels & Demons> DaVinci Code

 

Nothing magical. Take a look at dogs. According to the scientists, ALL of them derive from a single original "dog". Vast variety encoded in the DNA, most of it not used in a single example, all of it malleable do to selective breeding to re-inforce & bring out specific traits, either intentionally by breeders or randomly due to environment and nature.

Can I have butter with that syrup?

True as far as that goes, but currently, any scientist that disagrees loses the peer group acceptance as being "serious", including at least one Nobel winner. (shrug) Social Security is supposed to be the the "third rail" in politics, capable of killing your career. Finding fault with evolution seems to the the third rail of science. Even for some very "serious" scientists.

Personally, I don't have any problem separating faith from fact. Where facts are proven, they stand inviolate. Since science is the art of exploring the unknown, things are usually played with for a long time before fact is conclusively established, or disproved. Currently, neither random evolution NOR intelligent design are proven, so a firm belief in either involves some faith. And likely will for a long time to come. We each choose where to place our faith, and build our lives accordingly. I've known great people on both sides of this issue, and some jerks on both sides. Human nature is what it is regardless.

 

Wow G.T., your posts never fail to leave a sense of awe. Well said

 

Where did it say they had the same DNA?? I mean the rib thing I guess??
But DNA is a Map or Blueprint. IF it was a creator of design could it not change the DNA?

 

We also have to bear in mind that the Bible does not record everything that was going on around that time (to our knowledge). It's like a snapshot of any given time. Many parts of the Bible can not be taken just literally, as you would say a Jane Austen novel. There is a whole array of mental, physical and spiritual facets to it.