Islamic Creationism

[Ian McColgin]

A sad day for the culture that saved Aristotle, brought algebra, and once championed empiracle science. This thread is meant to simply show that Protestant fundamentalists don't have a lock on this - not to reawaken the eternal debate but I don't do thread locks so if the usual suspects want to babble on in the usual ways - - -

Published on Monday, March 26, 2007 by Reuters

French Scientists Rebut U.S., Muslim Creationism

by Tom Heneghan

With creationism now coming in Christian and Muslim versions, scientists, teachers and theologians in France are debating ways to counteract what they see as growing religious attacks on science.

Bible-based criticism of evolution, once limited to Protestant fundamentalists in the United States, has become an issue in France now that Pope Benedict and some leading Catholic theologians have criticized the neo-Darwinist view of creation.

An Islamist publisher in Turkey mass-mailed a lavishly illustrated Muslim creationist book to schools across France recently, prompting the Education Ministry to proscribe the volume and question the way the story of life is taught here.

The Bible and the Koran say God directly created the world and everything in it. In Christianity, fundamentalists believe this literally but the largest denomination, Catholicism, and most mainline Protestant churches read it more symbolically. This literalism led Christian fundamentalists to reject the theory of evolution elaborated in the 19th century by Charles Darwin, the foundation stone of modern biology. Muslim scholars also dispute evolution but have not made this a major issue.

“There is a growing distrust of science in public opinion, especially among the young, and that worries us,” said Philippe Deterre, a research biologist and Catholic priest who organized a colloquium on creationism for scientists at the weekend.

“There are many issues that go beyond strictly scientific or strictly theological explanations,” he said at the colloquium in this university town southwest of Paris.

Deterre’s Blaise Pascal Network promotes understanding between science and religion.

Barred from teaching creationism in U.S. public schools, some conservative Christians now advocate the “intelligent design” argument that some forms of life are too complex to have simply evolved. Scientists call this creationism in disguise.

These American concerns caught notice in Europe after Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, a confidant of Pope Benedict, attacked neo-Darwinist theories in 2005 in what seemed to be a move to ally the Catholic Church with “intelligent design.”

GROWING ISSUES IN FRANCE

These theoretical debates became a pressing issue in France last month when schools unexpectedly received free copies of an “Atlas of Creation” by Turkish Islamist Harun Yahya that blames Darwinism for everything from terrorism to Nazism.

Herve Le Guyader, a University of Paris biology professor who advised the Education Ministry on the Atlas, said high school biology teachers needed more training now to respond to the increasingly open challenges to the theory of evolution.

“It’s often taught in a simplistic way,” he said. “We have to give them the philosophical arguments they need to respond.”

Paleontologist Marc Godinot said creationists and their critics drew overblown conclusions from a theory that explains how life developed but not how it was created. The ultimate origin of life is not a question science can answer, he said.

Creationists reject evolution because some scientists say the role of chance in it proves that life has no final meaning.

“We have to decode this, but that’s a job for philosophers and theologians,” Godinot said . “Creation is actually a big mystery.”

Jacques Arnould, a Catholic priest who works at France’s National Center for Space Research, said Christians in Europe should not look down with bemusement at creationists abroad.

“They are believers, as we are,” the Dominican theologian told the meeting of about 100, mostly Catholic scientists with a few Muslims as well. “There are Christian, Muslim and Jewish approaches that we have to respect.”

Arnould said the question of life’s purpose arose naturally in biology class but science could not answer it. Instead of offering simple creationism, he said, theologians should develop views that respect modern science and faith in a divine purpose.

He said Catholic thinkers should update “natural theology,” the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) that married philosophy and science in a view that dominated European thought until the 18th-century Enlightenment divorced the two fields.

“Natural theology was based on the knowledge of the time,” said Arnould. “That knowledge keeps changing, so natural theology has to change too.”

Copyright © 2007 Reuters

[BrianW]

Both 'plans' start with a 'singularity'. ;)

[Sam F]

An Islamist publisher in Turkey mass-mailed a lavishly illustrated Muslim creationist book to schools across France recently, prompting the Education Ministry to proscribe the volume and question the way the story of life is taught here.

France now has an Index Librorum Prohibitorum
Will ironies never cease? :D

[George.]

I, for one, am very interested in seeing what Sam thinks of Islamic Creationism.

[George.]

I guess Sam is not brave enough to comment. Neither are any of the other anti-evolutionist bilge rats.

Perhaps it's because all the arguments they use to sell their brand of creationism apply equally well to the Islamic brand: the Bible stories, fossil "gaps," polonium halos...

[Phillip Allen]

good morning George...(I'm still trying to think of a way to come down there...sigh)

[George.]

Find a cheap ticket - the rest is covered.

[Sam F]

I guess Sam is not brave enough to comment. Neither are any of the other anti-evolutionist bilge rats.

Perhaps it's because all the arguments they use to sell their brand of creationism apply equally well to the Islamic brand: the Bible stories, fossil "gaps," polonium halos...

George.! You just don't get it, do you?
I am not a Biblical literalist (nor is my Church). Never have been. I've never argued for such a position.
Thus, why would you expect that I have the slightest inclination to defend Islamic Creationism?

I do however find it hilarious that "enlightened" secular France finds it necessary to have its very own list of forbidden books. :D :D

[Nanoose]

I am not a Biblical literalist (nor is my Church). Never have been. I've never argued for such a position.


Interesting!

[Osborne Russell]

Bible-based criticism of evolution, once limited to Protestant fundamentalists in the United States

If only !

[Osborne Russell]

I do however find it hilarious that "enlightened" secular France finds it necessary to have its very own list of forbidden books. :D :D

Wear a head scarf to school and out come the billy clubs and handcuffs.

[Rational Root]

<snip>
I do however find it hilarious that "enlightened" secular France finds it necessary to have its very own list of forbidden books. :D :D

The old freedom of speech problem.

If you start banning books that tell lies, who decides what is a lie. Do inconvenient truths later get banned along with lies.

Creationism is nothing more than snake oil, but would I like to see the book banned here ?

People can be stupid, witness the success of spam, pyramid schemes and the like. Where do you draw the line in protecting them.

If a child wants to stick their hand in a fire, you stop them.

If an adult wants to stick their hand in a fire, have they the right to ?

I would agree that it should be banned from being taught in school. Schools are centers of learning, not places of dogmatic unreason. We have an obligation to protect our children from unreason.

Is saddens me that there are people who peddle this garbage.

I'm with you Sam, the idea of banning books does not sit well with me. But I have long ago given up the notion of absolutes.

Should you ban "Pro-anorexia" books and web sites ? I think so.


So once you've banned anything you have the Hard problem.


Where do you draw the line ?

Or More to the Point - Who gets to Draw the Line?

[Keith Wilson]

An Islamist publisher in Turkey mass-mailed a lavishly illustrated Muslim creationist book to schools across France recently, prompting the Education Ministry to proscribe the volume and question the way the story of life is taught here.As far as I can tell from the article they aren't banning the book, they're keeping the schools from using it. That seems reasonable enough; we wouldn't want them to use a history book written by holucaust deniers or a biology book expounding the ideas of Trofim Lysenko, right?

[Sam F]

As far as I can tell from the article they aren't banning the book, they're keeping the schools from using it. That seems reasonable enough;...

The quote is all I have to go on:
"An Islamist publisher in Turkey mass-mailed a lavishly illustrated Muslim creationist book to schools across France recently, prompting the Education Ministry to proscribe the volume and question the way the story of life is taught here."

Look up what "proscribe" means.


...we wouldn't want them to use a history book written by holucaust deniers or a biology book expounding the ideas of Trofim Lysenko, right?

You tell me. Such things are widely available in educational settings. The Duh Vinci Code is taught in schools and there's not a word of reliable history in it.
And Lysenko is on the verge of being rehibilitated. See the Swedish study of grandfathers and how their diet effects the diabetes risk of their grandchildren. :D

[George.]

I am not a Biblical literalist (nor is my Church). Never have been.

You say you never have been. Your Church certainly has.

[Rational Root]

Is the Da Vinci Code being taught as an interesting peice of modern literature, which would not seem unreasonable - though some English Professors may offer comment on that.

If you are claiming that the Da Vinci Code is being taught as history, then I am staggered.




The quote is all I have to go on:
"An Islamist publisher in Turkey mass-mailed a lavishly illustrated Muslim creationist book to schools across France recently, prompting the Education Ministry to proscribe the volume and question the way the story of life is taught here."

Look up what "proscribe" means.

Who's Lysenko ? Ah never mind. I'll google.

D

You tell me. Such things are widely available in educational settings. The Duh Vinci Code is taught in schools and there's not a word of reliable history in it.
And Lysenko is on the verge of being rehibilitated. See the Swedish study of grandfathers and how their diet effects the diabetes risk of their grandchildren. :D

[stevebaby]

The quote is all I have to go on:
"An Islamist publisher in Turkey mass-mailed a lavishly illustrated Muslim creationist book to schools across France recently, prompting the Education Ministry to proscribe the volume and question the way the story of life is taught here."

Look up what "proscribe" means.
Look up "Education Ministry" and "schools".
Do Catholic schools teach the Koran, or is it "proscribed"?

[Keith Wilson]

For the love of God, Sam, I know what "proscribed" means. :rolleyes:

Again, they did not "ban" the book; the education ministry in France doesn't have that power AFAIK. I'm sure you can buy one in a bookstore if you want (or maybe order it from Turkey, there probably not being enough demand to stock it). As far as I can tell from the article, they just prohibited its use in schools - as they certainly should.

[WX]

MY imaginary friend is better than you imaginary friiend
:P

[Rational Root]

No Mine is better

And my imaginary friend says he's the only imaginary friend, so your imaginary friend doesn't exist. :p


MY imaginary friend is better than you imaginary friiend
:P

[Sam F]

...Again, they did not "ban" the book; the education ministry in France doesn't have that power AFAIK. I'm sure you can buy one in a bookstore if you want (or maybe order it from Turkey, there probably not being enough demand to stock it). As far as I can tell from the article, they just prohibited its use in schools - as they certainly should.


Keith, In the context of the schools that book is banned, as you have acknowledged.
And that is the case here with certain books in the US's schools. When that happens the ALA and assorted other groups have a fit to stop it. Obviously the fact that a book may be available in other places than school libraries is not sufficient to calm the ALA. (Just like today, under the old Index, books were still available by way of alternative routes)
Surely you aren't joining forces with the Fundamentalists and the Politically correct crowd to favor banning books from school libraries? :D

[Sam F]

Originally Posted by Sam F
I am not a Biblical literalist (nor is my Church). Never have been.

You say you never have been. Your Church certainly has.

More historical naiveté George..

[Sam F]

Look up "Education Ministry" and "schools".
Do Catholic schools teach the Koran, or is it "proscribed"?

I don't see why it would be. I know of an orthodox Catholic college where Marx is required reading for part of the core curriculum.

[George.]

Originally Posted by Sam F
I am not a Biblical literalist (nor is my Church). Never have been.

More historical naiveté George..

Did your Church never refer to the Bible to dispute the heliocentric theory?

[Sam F]

Did your Church never refer to the Bible

Did the Church ever refer to the Bible?
Let me think...
Yes, I think it does. Often! :D
And what has that to do with Biblical literalism?
Absolutely nothing.
George. believe it or not, the Catholic Church is Christian. I'd advise you get over it. :)


...to dispute the heliocentric theory?
And what has that to do with Biblical literalism?
Absolutely nothing.
I do note that the Church demanded proof of heliocentrism before accepting it. Asking for proof! What a concept!

The proof initially wasn't forthcoming. Later, when proof was available, the issue was resolved - and it had nothing to do with Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Which proves my point nicely.

[George.]

I've heard of splitting hairs, but splitting a question with multiple paragraphs to try to weasel out of an honest answer deserves some sort of prize... :D

[Sam F]

I am not a Biblical literalist (nor is my Church). Never have been.

If you want to refute that you've got to do much better than you have so far George. Accusation of hair splitting (where none is present) is never going to work. The problem you face is much worse than mere "hair splitting" - because your view is based on myth and propaganda and not fact.

Hint: I've got enough documentary evidence to blow you out of the water (speaking figuratively, not literally, of course). ;)

[George.]

So answer the question, Sam. Did the Catholic Church ever use biblical literalism to justify its dispute with heliocentrism?

Or more to the point of this thread: did it ever use biblical literalism to justify banning books? ;)

[Sam F]

So answer the question, Sam.
Like you could stop me? :D


Did the Catholic Church ever use biblical literalism to justify its dispute with heliocentrism?

No. It was a question of how to interprete scripture
The literal Biblical view is of a flat earth with the sky dome (firmament) suspended above it.
What the Church did was defend Ptolemy's astronomy which was the scientific consensus of the day. Remember the reverance due consensus? Why do you expect anything less in those days than today? ;)
The demand of proof was quite reasonable (Duh!)- but no reliable proof was forthcoming (what was provided was completely wrong - the earth's movement was responsible for tides). Thus the Church refused to re-re-interpret scripture until proof was available (she having already done so once to accept Ptolemy).
Once it was available scripture was interpreted accordingly. Biblical literalism was never even considered since it wasn't never the issue.


Or more to the point of this thread: did it ever use biblical literalism to justify banning books?

What's France's excuse? :)

I think you might reexamine "the point". You responded to my statement and I stand by it. I said the Church wasn't Biblically literalist and never has been. That's standard Church doctrine and always has been - that's fact.
Here's another hint: Fundamentalism is a modern 20th Century movement. Projecting that moment's views onto the Renaissance Church is quite illigitimate and naive.

[George.]

Lesse. This time, we have a dodge:


No. It was a question of how to interprete scripture...
(long-winded diversion into flat earthers vs. Ptolemy)...
Once it was available scripture was interpreted accordingly. Biblical literalism was never even considered since it wasn't never the issue.

Followed by an excuse disguised as a rebuttal:


I think you might reexamine "the point". ... Projecting that moment's views onto the Renaissance Church is quite illigitimate and naive.

Face it, Sam. Your Church once used the Bible to justify its claim that the Earth was the center of the solar system. And it once used the Bible to justify its banning of books.

And if you had been alive back then, you would have bought their excuses. But perhaps you will now launch into a defense of the Index, and of book-burning in general...



Like you could stop me? :D


I wouldn't try... :D

[Sam F]

Lesse. This time, we have a dodge...Followed by an excuse disguised as a rebuttal...

Face it, Sam. Your Church once used the Bible to justify its claim that the Earth was the center of the solar system. And it once used the Bible to justify its banning of books...

George. you have once again exhibited remarkable historical naivete' (not to mention debate naivete'! :)).
I pointed out that the Church defended Ptolemaic astronomy - the scientific consensus of the day.
That's indesputable fact.
The Biblical literal view does not support Ptolemy. Period.
Therefore it is impossible for the Church to have used Biblical literalism to object to heliocentrism since she did not defend the Biblical view of the cosmos. Period.
Thus, you have no case. Protesting what you pretend is a "dodge" doesn't help you one bit.

Here's a challenge for you George. The only way you can pull your self out of this mess is to demonstrate how the Bible literally supports Ptolemy's spherical earth suspended in space with the concentric spheres of planets travelling in epicycles around it and beyond them, a sphere of fixed stars revolving around them all.

Hint: It can't be done, but it'd be fun to see you try!

[Sam F]

George. another pointer: Never ever EVER believe your own, or anyone else's, propaganda. First check out the other fellow's actual position. Otherwise you'll stumble badly... again.

[Tom Montgomery]

I pointed out that the Church defended Ptolemaic astronomy - the scientific consensus of the day.By declaring Galileo's conception of the solar system heretical and placing him under house arrest for the remainder of his life. A very revealing form of peer-review.

[George.]

And Sam is on record saying that the Church did not refer to the Bible in its trial of Galileo, or in its banning of books...

...I see a very long post, with cut and paste and links, coming. :D

[Tom Montgomery]

So, on what basis did the Roman Catholic Church consider Galileo's views heretical?

It's amusing how Sam attempts to portray the Church's theologically based suppression of Galileo's thought as some sort of scientific discourse.

It was never about the free exchange of ideas and "let the chips fall where they may." The Church was attempting to defend something alright... but not Ptolemaic astronomy.

[Sam F]

And Sam is on record saying that the Church did not refer to the Bible in its trial of Galileo, or in its banning of books...

This is what I'm "on record" as saying:


I am not a Biblical literalist (nor is my Church). Never have been.

You're claim (see above) is something I did not say.
Now do you want to take that back? Or do I draw the appropriate conclusions?

[Tom Montgomery]

I do note that the Church demanded proof of heliocentrism before accepting it. Asking for proof! What a concept!

The proof initially wasn't forthcoming....

The demand of proof was quite reasonable (Duh!)- but no reliable proof was forthcoming (what was provided was completely wrong - the earth's movement was responsible for tides). Thus the Church refused to re-re-interpret scripture until proof was available....Wrong. He wrote Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems in support of his concept of the solar system. And, yes, he was incorrect about the cause of tides. He was also incorrect about the shape of the planet's orbits. But the book addressed more than simply those two issues.

No one ever seriously questioned the Theory of General Relativity simply because Einstein was demonstrably incorrect about the "cosmological constant".

You are a scientific Luddite. And you accuse George. of historical naivete? Hilarious.

[Nanoose]

I am not a Biblical literalist (nor is my Church). Never have been.

Your interpretation of John 6 would seem a contradiction to this statement, and I don't want to drift this thread, but everytime I see this quoted, I am saying, "Not so, SamF".

[Sam F]

Your interpretation of John 6 would seem a contradiction to this statement, and I don't want to drift this thread, but everytime I see this quoted, I am saying, "Not so, SamF".

No problem Deb (is that right?)
In a complex work such as the Bible some things are quite capable of being taken literally. If the Gospels say that Jesus went to Jerusalem that's easily literal.
If you interpreted that passage to mean that he went to Washington DC, you'd be stepping beyond the reasonable bounds of the text. No?
If you insisted on it you'd be a heretic. ;)

If Jesus himself says something that His own contemporaries challenged and he stuck to his literal meaning there are only three options available: The narrator is an inept liar, or Jesus was mad, or Jesus was sane and really said what he did and meant it.
If a latter day interpreter wants to put some other interpretation on that particular passage he's got his work cut out for him.

[Keith Wilson]

Oh, I'm not going to touch this one with either a proverbial or actual 10-foot pole. :D Carry on, folks.

[Nanoose]

Hi Sam - yup, it's Deb :)

So you are now saying both, "I am not a Biblical literalist" and


In a complex work such as the Bible some things are quite capable of being taken literally.

[Tom Montgomery]

Yeah. I'm with you, Keith. I'll dispute incorrect presentation of fact, but people are entitled to their religious belief. As Hemingway wrote in Islands in the Stream, "Practice any faith you like. I've got a ball field out back where you can practice." ;)

[Sam F]

Hi Sam -

So you are now saying both, "I am not a Biblical literalist" and

Biblical Literalist (AFAIK) equals Fundamentalist.
The Catholic Church is not Fundamentalist. Never has been.
Never will be.
If the term "Literalist" is being used in some specialized or unconventional way then that needs to be explained. So far it hasn't.

But what else can do except take some things literally and others figuratively or symbolically?

I'm not about to say that Jesus went to DC because not taking the Bible literally lets me do that... do you?
And at the same time, if something He said was obviously parable - like the Prodigal son - I don't think he had anybody in particular in mind - though that's possible. It's more likely Jesus is taking about human beings in general not specific individuals.
And if Jesus says you must be baptized and when challenged refused to soften His stand, you have little choice - other than the three previously noted.
If you chose either of the first two you need to re-think your comittments.

[WX]

No Mine is better

And my imaginary friend says he's the only imaginary friend, so your imaginary friend doesn't exist.

Oh dear, I can see a long and bloody religious war developing here.
I still believe my prince of peace is better than yours...so there.

[glenallen]

Let me get this straight!
The prodigal son is parable.
You must be baptized is literal.
Noah's Ark is parable....or is it literal?
Turn wine into, er, I mean water into wine is parable, or is it literal?
Oooh, my head hurts.

How do you keep it straight in your own mind, Sam?
It must take years and years of reminding yourself what is true and what is not. And stick to it, no matter what!

[Sam F]

Let me get this straight!
The prodigal son is parable.
...How do you keep it straight in your own mind, Sam?

Lemme tell ya it's tough. Really tough.
Take that prodigal son parable. How could I possibly know that it's a parable and not something else?

Well there are some secret clues contained in scripture if you only have the key. I'll tell but don't tell anybody else - you promise?
Let me show you:

Luke 15

1. Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him.
2. And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, "This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them."
3. So he told them this parable: ...
...10. Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."
11. Then Jesus said, "There was a man who had two sons.
12. The younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of the property that will belong to me.' So he divided his property between them...

Here's a few more examples. Note the special secret word that I've put in bold from Matthew 13
18. "Hear then the parable of the sower.
And
24. Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field.
31. He presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field;
33. He spoke another parable to them, "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened."
34. All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable .
36. Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field."

There's simply dozens of them all revealed with that simple secret.
Amazing eh? :D

[Sam F]

So you are now saying both, "I am not a Biblical literalist" and


In a complex work such as the Bible some things are quite capable of being taken literally.

I think it well demonstrated what Biblical Literalism means - in case of lingering doubts here's a definition:
Biblical literalism is the adherence to the explicit and literal sense of the Bible. In its purest form such a belief would deny the existence of allegory, parable and metaphor in the Bible... (Wikipedia)

It is obvious that one need not take everything literally in the Bible. Nor could one legitimately conclude that by not doing so everything contained therein would thus be up for grabs to be interpreted as fashion or whim dictates.

Such a view is caricature not reflective of reality.

Since you were asking, it reminded me of some unfinished business from the Resurrection thread. Here are some quotes from that thread:



There is much in Catholic theology and practice that I find no biblical basis for.

And on the Creed:


I use neither/none. Again, I use the Bible



There needs to be biblical support...


... And I don't know how much of that quote is Catholicism, and how much of it is Christianity...

So I'll ask again [again!]:
OK Nanoose [Deb that is], peb and I and Sharpie have all provided some of the Biblical foundations for Catholic Doctrines. But I'm not sure how much your views are Protestantism (of various denominations) and how much is Christianity.
Do you have any comments on the Biblical basis we've provided, vs. your own?

[Tom Montgomery]

http://my.fit.edu/~jbobosky/BBS/Hijack.JPG

[glenallen]

"Amazing eh?"

It's only amazing in that you believe it.
You seem far too intelligent.
You must know how long those stories(parables) existed before Jesus came along?

[Sam F]

"Amazing eh?"

It's only amazing in that you believe it.
You seem far too intelligent.

Nah! I'm dumb as a stump. That's why I'm so ignorant.

[Nanoose]

Tom - great pic! :eek: Is that an aircraft carrier? (you wanted some thread hijack...this is about as far as I'm willing to go! :) :D)

[Tom Montgomery]

Yep. :D

[glenallen]

Yeah, Nanoose(Deb), are you a Real Christian or a Protestant?

[glenallen]

Nah! I'm dumb as a stump. That's why I'm so ignorant.
I've never called you ignorant, only misguided!

[George.]

Deb, let me try to explain Sam to you: he said that he is not a Biblical Literalist - uppercase.

That means that he reserves the right to interpret the Bible literally as far as he pleases - or rather, as far as he is told to by his Church. He is still not a Biblical Literalist, as long as there are some parts of the Bible that he does not interpret literally, because he defined Biblical Literalist to mean someone who interprets all of the Bible literally.

Sam F, by contrast, only interprets literally the bits his Church tells him to interpret literally. If he lived in 1600 he'd be an ardent defender of the Index and planetary epicycles... :D

[ishmael]

Well, just my take. The scripture, all scripture, is a collective dream. As with a dream the place to start is with symbolism, not with actuallity! When I dream of a person, say my father long dead, I don't start by saying I was visited by my father in the night; I start by asking what, in the context of the dream, was my inner father, my father image, saying to me?

That said, there are literalisms in dream and in scripture. Teasing them apart is not easy. I, for example, don't believe the literal interpretation of the raising of Lazarus. To look at it that way is so limiting. It's a metaphor for Jesus awakening a "dead" Lazarus to a new consciousness. As long as the literal is clung to the finer nuance, the opening to new awareness, is lost.

There are strictures in all the world's scripture against speaking of these things too openly, too easily, and it's true that they are dangerous in the wrong hands. Jesus tells his apostles that he teaches the masses in metaphor, parable, but that they, the apostles are taught outright. We never learn in the Gospels what that teaching consisted of. There are hints in the extra-canonical works. It has to do, near as I can figure, with changing one's consciousness, not praying to some plastic image of God, including but not limited to the man, Jesus.

What the hell! It's high time.

[George.]

Real Christianity came on the tip of a Roman spear, and on a blade of Toledo steel.

[Sam F]

Deb, let me try to explain Sam to you: he said that he is not a Biblical Literalist - uppercase.

That means that he reserves the right to interpret the Bible literally as far as he pleases - or rather, as far as he is told to by his Church...

Such peevishness is doing you no credit George.. It certainly doesn't enhance your reputation for scholarship.
It is quite clear and I've been explicit about it that my view (and that of the Church) is to take the Biblical text seriously and read it as it was intended to be read - when it's parable to read it as parable(wow! The Bible even says so too!) and those parts that must be taken literaly need to be taken that way.
This is no different from what happens in normal conversation - When my kids say: "It was the most humongus thing in the world!" I know enough to take that as figurative speach. When they say: "I drove to college." I don't immediately assume that they instead went to Walmart.
Just because I don't take everything the kids say literally doesn't mean that I must do so for everything they say! The method used to understand distinctions is called Reason.
You do understand that George. so quit pretending that you don't. ;)

[Sam F]

Real Christianity came on the tip of a Roman spear...

That's right - just before the Christians were pushed at spear point into the arena to be killed in various entertaining ways as a spectacle for the Roman people's enjoyment.

[Sam F]

I've never called you ignorant, only misguided!

Well ignorant enough to be confused. Like this:
When a school system bans a book in the US (like so-and-so has Two Mommies... that sort of thing) the ALA (American Library Association) and other civil libertarian groups have blue fits.
When France does the same thing that's OK. Even praiseworthy.
I am just not clever and smart enough to keep all that contradiction straight in my head. It's right, then it's wrong, then it's right again... I'm just too dumb to keep up - don't you see?
Frankly, I don't see how you do it! :D

[George.]

So tell us, Sam, if you lived in 1600, would you disagree with your Church's biblical justification for the Index?

[Sam F]

Of course you're once again practicing selective historical anachronism by projecting today's values back into the past. It's utterly illegitimate to suppose anyone would act on a set of ideas about freedom of speech that had not yet been invented:

So tell us, Sam, if you lived in 1600, would you disagree with your Church's biblical justification for the Index?

George. I didn't say any such thing and I'd appreciate it if you quit distorting what I said.
But since it's so important to you... I do not know the justification behind every case (I'll bet you don't either) - so I can't answer the question one way or the other, it being a sensible thing to not speak from ignorance. I do know that books get banned all the time and I don't see you hollering about it - so your "hollering" now rings hollow.

Tell me George. do you disagree with France's proscription of Creationist books? The same thing has happened in the US.
Do you agree with a US Federal Judge's banning of a simple label that had the audacity to suggest that "...Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
The first sentence is a fact. The second sentence is just good pedagogy. Do you agree with it being banned?

[George.]

Here is some good pedagogy for you, Sam:


In February of 1616, in response to Galileo's presentation of his case in Rome and to the attacks on him by Caccini and others, the Inquisition asked a commission of theologians, known as the Qualifiers, about the propositions that the Sun is at the center of the planets' motions and does not move, and that the Earth is not at the center and does move. On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."

At a meeting of the cardinals of the Inquisition on the following day, Pope Paul V instructed Bellarmine to deliver this result to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions; should Galileo resist the decree, stronger action would be taken. On February 26 Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence, and accepted the orders.[3] On March 5, the decree was issued by the Congregation for the Index, prohibiting, condemning, or suspending various books which advocated the Copernican system.


Now go back to telling us how neither you nor your Church have ever been biblical literalists... or Biblical Literalists, if you prefer. :p

[George.]

Both religions are quite old and have had time to mature yet only one of the above statements is in the past tense.



That's because only one of them is an unbiased statement of fact.

[Sam F]

...Now go back to telling us how neither you nor your Church have ever been biblical literalists... or Biblical Literalists, if you prefer.

George. don't you understand the definition of the term "Biblical Literalist"? I posted it just above so you've no excuse.
I am not a Biblical Literalist and neither is the Church. Not now. Not then. Not ever.

[Sam F]

Tell me George. do you disagree with France's proscription of Creationist books? The same thing has happened in the US.
Do you agree with a US Federal Judge's banning of a simple label that had the audacity to suggest that "...Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
The first sentence is a fact. The second sentence is just good pedagogy. Do you agree with it being banned?

[Sam F]

Oh and by the way... "the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd" Is that not so? :D

[George.]

Really, Sam. Trying to change the subject to whether the sun moves? You can do better than that. For one thing:


Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...

This guy seems to think it was the centrality of the earth that the theologians of the time maintained because of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

But perhaps you disagree with him... :D

[Sam F]

Come on George. You are guilty of anachronism in unreasonably projecting your values back on to the past. I'm asking not about the past but your values right now. This is the third time. How about an answer?

Tell me George. do you disagree with France's proscription of Creationist books? The same thing has happened in the US.
Do you agree with a US Federal Judge's banning of a simple label that had the audacity to suggest that "...Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
The first sentence is a fact. The second sentence is just good pedagogy. Do you agree with it being banned?

[Sam F]

Really, Sam. Trying to change the subject to whether the sun moves? You can do better than that.

Does the Sun move or not George.? Simple answer and we both know what it is. Answer please.

[George.]

Eppur si muove...

Everything moves. Except for Sam F.

[Tom Montgomery]

Yes, the sun moves. It is orbiting about the central point of the Milky Way galaxy.

Sam, are you suggesting that the Church theologians of 1616 were referring to this fact in their statement that the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical..." If so, who is now engaging in historical anachronism?

Clearly, the "Qualifiers" were referring to their own belief that the sun and other planets orbited the earth.

[Tom Montgomery]

Just for kicks, I searched Google Images for "God says Sam is wrong" and found this:

http://www.catholicintl.com/promos/tapes1.jpg

Catholic Apologetics International (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.catholicintl.com/promos/tapes1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/justification/horton-rebutal6.htm&h=496&w=350&sz=27&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=6uy5YNuYpvAt5M:&tbnh=130&tbnw=92&prev=/images%3Fq%3DGod%2Bsays%2BSam%2Bis%2Bwrong%26gbv%3 D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG)

[sharpie]

This guy seems to think it was the centrality of the earth that the theologians of the time maintained because of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I would like to know where you got the quote where the author says that the debate was about the earth being at the center of the universe? From what I know about classical and medieval cosmology, the earth was not at the center but at the bottom of created being. The myth of centrality was the result of later propoganda (Voltaire and the philosophes) to discredit Faith and to demonstrate how it was obscurantist (sounds like George's one note song, doesn't it?).So, how about a source for the quote Gdot?

[Sam F]

Eppur si muove...

Sure does and thus you are in agreement with:
"the idea that the Sun is stationary is foolish and absurd".
Kinda ironic isn't it? :D

Now you've still got a question to answer - do you approve of banning books or not?

[Tom Montgomery]

Check it out, sharpie: The Catholic Encyclopedia: Galileo Galilei (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm)


..the ecclesiastical authorities taking alarm at the persistence with which Galileo proclaimed the truth of the Copernican doctrine.... were firmly convinced, with Bacon and others, that the new teaching was radically false and unscientific.... But what, more than all, raised alarm was anxiety for the credit of Holy Scripture, the letter of which was then universally believed to be the supreme authority in matters of science, as in all others. When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore heretical.

[Tom Montgomery]

Sure does and thus you are in agreement with:
"the idea that the Sun is stationary is foolish and absurd".
Kinda ironic isn't it?Yeah, it is. It only took a bit over three more centuries and the work of Edwin Hubble to vindicate the 17th century theologians.

But as they say: even a blind squirrel stumbles across an acorn once in a while.

[Sam F]

Sharpie, George. is a bit inattentive to such niceties as sources, but it seems he got at least some of his quotes from Wikipedia.

I think his case is vulnerable on several fronts. Both from the past due to his inaccurate propagandized beliefs about it and from the present with his double standard concerning book banning.

You do have a double standard, don't you George.?
Otherwise you would have answered immediately that since you condemn Renaissance book banning you condemn it equally today.
But you don't.
That's a pretty difficult trap you've set for youself!
Let's see if you can wiggle out of it. ;)

[Tom Montgomery]

Sharpie, George. is a bit inattentive to such niceties as sources, but it seems he got at least some of his quotes from Wikipedia.You've been known to reference Wikipedia as well, Sam. "Do as I say, not as I do?"

Are you supporting sharpie in his contention that the debate between the Church and Galileo was not about the Copernican model versus the Ptolemaic model? Inquistitive minds want to know...

[Tom Montgomery]

My mistake. The credit for the discovery of galactic rotation belngs to Bertil Linblad (1895-1965) who hypothesized that the local system of stars is rotating about the Galactic center (Linblad, 1925) and Jan Oort (1900-1992) who worked out the means to confirm the fact by observation (Oort, 1927).

Edwin Hubble was responsible for discovering the presence of other galaxies, the fact that the universe is expanding, and a host of other fascinating observations.

[Tom Montgomery]

Do you agree with a US Federal Judge's banning of a simple label that had the audacity to suggest that "...Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."Yes, absolutely.
The first sentence is a fact. The second sentence is just good pedagogy. Do you agree with it being banned?In the context of this particular case? Yes, absolutely.

Now, I would have absolutely NO problem if any school board in the land placed a similar warning label on their science textbooks listing, in alphabetical order, every single scientific theory addressed in the textbook. I suspect the judge in this case would agree with me. Of course, such a thing would never happen and, if it did, there would probably be no lawsuit.

[Tom Montgomery]

How about this for a label:

"The theories presented in this science text are principles, models, based upon a body of fact. Do not confuse the two: theory is not fact. Theory is dependent upon fact. Theories can, and sometimes do, change. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Do you think that one would result in a lawsuit?

[sharpie]

Yeah, it is. It only took a bit over three more centuries and the work of Edwin Hubble to vindicate the 17th century theologians.

But as they say: even a blind squirrel stumbles across an acorn once in a while.

Well, Tom, that is a little extreme given that the Ptolemaic Universe and Greek cosmology had the spheres above the earth "moving" as part of their cosmology. That Biblical data and Ptolomaic theory coincided on this point might be serendipitous, but it is not necessarily blind.

BTW, Sam gives a heads up when he is referring to sources. It is clearly announced where he derives the information. George has not done so, because he is sandbagging. Watch for the first post of the day tomorrow when he trots out his "authority" and starts doing the "nanny, nanny boo boo" dance. It should be quite a show.

[sharpie]

You've been known to reference Wikipedia as well, Sam. "Do as I say, not as I do?"

Are you supporting sharpie in his contention that the debate between the Church and Galileo was not about the Copernican model versus the Ptolemaic model? Inquistitive minds want to know...

Tom, I don't quite know what Sam is saying, but research over the past 50 years or so has led many historians to the conclusion that what was at issue was not the Copenican theory. The pope at the time was a friend of Galileo. Galileo wrote a book in which one of the characters (whom the pope believed was a caricature of himself) was presented quite badly. The pope took offense and flexed. My sources for this are in my office, so I cannot give you direct refs. That will have to wait for a day or two.

[Keith Wilson]

Galileo wrote a book in which one of the characters (whom the pope believed was a caricature of himself) was presented quite badly. The pope took offense and flexed. I have read the same, sharpie; AFAIK it's the standard reading of the historical record. It certainly accounts for the vigor of the prosecution. I think it's probably incorrect to say that the case wasn't really about astronomy, but there was certainly a large personal element, and it seems likely that Galileo would have been left alone had he not P.O'd the pope.

[Sam F]

I do note that the Church demanded proof of heliocentrism before accepting it. Asking for proof! What a concept!

The proof initially wasn't forthcoming. Later, when proof was available, the issue was resolved - and it had nothing to do with Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Which proves my point nicely.

In case anyone didn't understand that point, I offer the following quote from Cardinal Bellarmine to Galileo:

Prove your theory and we will change our exegesis, otherwise teach it as a hypothesis, which saves the appearances.

That is not Biblical Literalism. It's not even close.

[glenallen]

"Prove your theory and we will change our exegesis, otherwise teach it as hypothesis, which saves the appearances."

If only the Church would teach its theory as hypothesis.

[Tom Montgomery]

I do note that the Church demanded proof of heliocentrism before accepting it. Asking for proof! What a concept!

The proof initially wasn't forthcoming. Later, when proof was available, the issue was resolved - and it had nothing to do with Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Which proves my point nicely.In case anyone didn't understand that point, I offer the following quote from Cardinal Bellarmine to Galileo:
Prove your theory and we will change our exegesis, otherwise teach it as a hypothesis, which saves the appearances.Yes, "prove the theory or drop it" was the demand made on Galileo. Galileo had evidence (observations of the phases of Venus, for example) but no definitive proof. John Paul II defended Galileo on that one:


A twofold question is at the heart of the debate of which Galileo was the centre.

The first is of the epistemological order and concerns biblical hermeneutics. In this regard, two points must again be raised. In the first place, like most of his adversaries, Galileo made no distinction between the scientific approach to natural phenomena and a reflection on nature, of the philosophical order, which that approach generally calls for. That is why he rejected the suggestion made to him to present the Copernican system as a hypothesis, inasmuch as it had not been confirmed by irrefutable proof. Such therefore, was an exigency of the experimental method of which he was the inspired founder.
...research over the past 50 years or so has led many historians to the conclusion that what was at issue was not the Copenican theory.That was not John Paul II's understanding:


Secondly, the geocentric representation of the world was commonly admitted in the culture of the time as fully agreeing with the teaching of the Bible of which certain expressions, taken literally seemed to affirm geocentrism. The problem posed by theologians of that age was, therefore, that of the compatibility between heliocentrism and Scripture.

Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so.

Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. "If Scripture cannot err", he wrote to Benedetto Castelli, "certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways". We also know of his letter to Christine de Lorraine (1615) which is like a short treatise on biblical hermeneutics....

....the cultural horizon of Galileo's age was uniform and carried the imprint of a particular philosophical formation. This unitary character of culture, which in itself is positive and desirable even in our own day, was one of the reasons for Galileo's condemnation. The majority of theologians did not recognize the formal distinction between Sacred Scripture and its interpretation, and this led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation....

From the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment down to our own day, the Galileo case has been a sort of "myth", in which the image fabricated out of the events was quite far removed from reality. In this perspective, the Galileo case was the symbol of the Church's supposed rejection of scientific progress, or of "dogmatic" obscurantism opposed to the free search for truth. This myth has played a considerable cultural role. It has helped to anchor a number of scientists of good faith in the idea that there was an incompatibility between the spirit of science and its rules of research on the one hand and the Christian faith on the other. A tragic mutual incomprehension has been interpreted as the reflection of a fundamental opposition between science and faith. The clarifications furnished by recent historical studies enable us to state that this sad misunderstanding now belongs to the past....

From the Galileo affair we can learn a lesson which remains valid in relation to similar situations which occur today and which may occur in the future.

In Galileo's time, to depict the world as lacking an absolute physical reference point was, so to speak, inconceivable. And since the cosmos, as it was then known, was contained within the solar system alone, this reference point could only be situated in the earth or in the sun. Today, after Einstein and within the perspective of contemporary cosmology neither of these two reference points has the importance they once had. This observation, it goes without saying, is not directed against the validity of Galileo's position in the debate; it is only meant to show that often, beyond two partial and contrasting perceptions, there exists a wider perception which includes them and goes beyond both of them.

Another lesson which we can draw is that the different branches of knowledge call for different methods. Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture. Let us recall the celebrated saying attributed to Baronius "Spiritui Sancto mentem fuisse nos docere quomodo ad coelum eatur, non quomodo coelum gradiatur". In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition. The two realms are not altogether foreign to each other, they have points of contact. The methodologies proper to each make it possible to bring out different aspects of reality.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html

[George.]

So, how about a source for the quote Gdot?


Sharpie, George. is a bit inattentive to such niceties as sources, but it seems he got at least some of his quotes from Wikipedia.



Actually, that one came from a fellow who, according to you two, doesn't know his history, and doesn't know anything about the Catholic Church. Regardless, he seems to think that the beef with Galileo was about the centrality of the Earth, and that the Church was wrong because it based its opposition on biblical literalism.

His name is Karol, but he was better known as Pope John Paul II.

You may start wiggling now. :D

[sharpie]

Tom, thank you for the link to the quote. It is clear to me from it that both SamF and I have been consistent with what we have been saying, especially with respect to the "myth" that the Galileo case is representative of the Church's hostility to science. In addition, JPII supports our assertion that "biblical literalism" as displayed by theologians was not compatible with Church tradition -- hence the reference to Augustine and Baronius. It is too bad that he lumped all theologians in with those opposed to Galileo -- this is simply not the case historically speaking. It is also too bad that he did not mention the role papal egos have in exacerbating specific problems with respect to such debates.

JPII's encyclical letter "Fides et Ratio" explores further the themes of the "two fold order of knowledge" with much more careful attention to the history of the relationship of faith and reason in the theological life of the Church.

[George.]

Sorry, sharpie. What John Paul said is this:


The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...

Which theologians? All theologians? No. In discussing Galileo's case, he was referring specifically to these theologians:


In February of 1616, in response to Galileo's presentation of his case in Rome and to the attacks on him by Caccini and others, the Inquisition asked a commission of theologians, known as the Qualifiers, about the propositions that the Sun is at the center of the planets' motions and does not move, and that the Earth is not at the center and does move. On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."

At a meeting of the cardinals of the Inquisition on the following day, Pope Paul V instructed Bellarmine to deliver this result to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions; should Galileo resist the decree, stronger action would be taken. On February 26 Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence, and accepted the orders.[3] On March 5, the decree was issued by the Congregation for the Index, prohibiting, condemning, or suspending various books which advocated the Copernican system.

To recapitulate:

1) Based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, a comission declared that the Earth is the center of the solar system;

2) The Pope at the time accepted this conclusion, made it official Church policy, and banned all books placing the Sun in the center of the solar system.

3) Pope John Paul admitted it was a mistake, focused on geocentrism, and due to biblical literalism.

4) If you and Sam had been alive in 1616, you would have wholeheartedly supported the Church's position, and spun endless arguments trying to prove geocentrism through gaps in the fossil record, polonium halos, or whatever.

[Ian McColgin]

Rationalization aside, the Church obliged Gallileo to do a bit of recanting and the Church was wrong.

The epistemological and metaphysical casuistry used to justify the Church actually puts in starkest relief the problems that obtain when an essentially logic and text driven epistemology collides with an empirical epistemology.

Some of the empirical persuasion (Dawkins et al) may regard logic driven epistemologies as spurious - though what they then do about math is a tad obscure - but nowadays the Church's incredibly sophisticated reworking of the Thomistic synthesis (usually called "critical realism") really gets it that, as in quantum mechanics, different questions may require fundamentally different modes of knowledge and may result in different answers that cannot actually be held at the same moment but may be held by the same person.

The folly of endless debate to rationalize the Church's past regarding scientific teachings from near (solar system) cosmology to evolution revolves around this very point.

I am thankful that the creationists have not yet attacked the theories of gravitation, but the day may come . . .

Meanwhile, public school systems in France, like public school systems in this nation, are correct to ban - proscribe from school use if you will - the teaching of religious doctrines as if they were competing scientific hypotheses.

[sharpie]

George, first, it should be understood that I am not defending the Galileo affair. If this leads to your conclusion in #4, then it is erroneous. Galileo himself was a "sincere believer" and came to different conclusions than the "qualifiers". If things were so rigidly deterministic as you allude to, then you too would have been a fundy of a different stripe than you are now. So do me a favor and stop trying to score points. It is pathetic.

Secondly, what JPII does not mention is that the "qualifiers" of the Inquisition were not necessarily representative of theological opinion at the time. Thirdly, the Pope's accepting their conclusion is not based on doctrine alone, see his peevishness toward Galileo with respect to his taking insult at one of the characters in Galileo's book.
Finally, that JPII apologized because the affair was contrary to the Church's understanding of the relationship between faith and reason is correct. His understanding of that relationship did not just strike him one morning while he was shaving, it was already very much part of the tradition, no matter how badly treated by Paul V and his qualifiers.

[Tom Montgomery]

...what JPII does not mention is that the "qualifiers" of the Inquisition were not necessarily representative of theological opinion at the time.

John Paul II:
The problem posed by theologians of that age was, therefore, that of the compatibility between heliocentrism and Scripture.

Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so....

The majority of theologians did not recognize the formal distinction between Sacred Scripture and its interpretation, and this led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.

[Sam F]

Really, Sam. Trying to change the subject to whether the sun moves? You can do better than that. For one thing:

Yes, it seems that your source was Wikipedia since its quote stopped in the same place yours did:

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...

But if you'd actually read JPII you'd have discovered a bit more:


...In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition. The two realms are not altogether foreign to each other, they have points of contact. The methodologies proper to each make it possible to bring out different aspects of reality.

You'll never make a case for Biblical Literalism with quotes like that George.! :D

[George.]

Silly Sam, it is not John Paul who is the biblical literalist in the Galileo affair. It is the entire Catholic Church of the 17th century. John Paul is the one admitting that it was so.

Got that? John Paul isn't the one who banned all books on the heliocentric theory. He is the one who apologized for it. Surely, if you make an effort, you'll keep up better.

[Tom Montgomery]

You are correct, Sam, that the Roman Catholic Church in 2007 does not embrace Biblical literalism. It is incorrect to assert that it was never the case... it was a different matter in 1616, as John Paul II makes clear.

[George.]

Secondly, what JPII does not mention is that the "qualifiers" of the Inquisition were not necessarily representative of theological opinion at the time.

Doesn't matter. It was their opinion that the Church officially adopted, and any others were deemed heretical. An opinion strictly based on biblical literalism.

[Sam F]

Silly Sam, it is not John Paul who is the biblical literalist in the Galileo affair. It is the entire Catholic Church of the 17th century...

Sorry but you've got some insurmountable obstacles to that view.
For starters JPII was not talking of some new sort of Biblical interpretation - but restating the original view. (That's why your out-of-context quote was so misleading).
Second, you have the quote from Cardinal Bellarmine, Galileo's contemporary and a crucial player in what happened to him.
If Galileo had proof the Church would, as Bellarmine said, have re-interpreted scripture. But he couldn't prove his theory.
So you're stuck on several levels:
1. The Church is not and never has been Biblical Literalist and specifically wasn't in Galileo's time (see evidence provided).
2. Galileo couldn't prove his theory... nor was it proved with physical evidence until the 19th Century. So your demand that his theory be accepted without reservation is, by definition, unreasonable.
3. The prevailing scientific consensus of the day, Ptolemaic astronomy, was not Biblically based in the first place.

So, absent you getting over those obstacles, you're stuck. Relying on out-of-context quotes and anachronistic projection of today's knowledge onto the past makes for a very weak case.

[Tom Montgomery]

Only "insurmountable" in your own mind.
If Galileo had proof the Church would, as Bellarmine said, have re-interpreted scripture.Oh? You mean to say that Galileo was demanding that the Church re-interpret scripture? You are asserting that was what Galileo was about?


The Church is not and never has been Biblical Literalist and specifically wasn't in Galileo's timeIs it that you cannot comprehend English? Or is it that you are truly more Catholic than the Pope?

John Paul II stated:
Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.


Galileo couldn't prove his theory... nor was it proved with physical evidence until the 19th Century."Proof" Galileo's observations of the phases of Venus was a strong indication that his theory was correct. Galileo knew this. It explains his contemptuous attitude toward the adversarial position as betrayed by his character Simplicious in Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems. The Church's requirement for irrefutable "proof" was a dodge. As for your contention that no physical evidence was available until the 19th century, you are evidently ignorant of the work of Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, and Edmund Halley.

John Paul II wrote:

...Galileo made no distinction between the scientific approach to natural phenomena and a reflection on nature, of the philosophical order, which that approach generally calls for. That is why he rejected the suggestion made to him to present the Copernican system as a hypothesis, inasmuch as it had not been confirmed by irrefutable proof. Such therefore, was an exigency of the experimental method of which he was the inspired founder....

The majority of theologians did not recognize the formal distinction between Sacred Scripture and its interpretation, and this led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation....


The prevailing scientific consensus of the day, Ptolemaic astronomy, was not Biblically based in the first place.True. However, Ptolemaic astronomy nicely dovetailed with and illustrated the prevailing theology of the day. The church had a stake in the Ptolemaic model. If this were not so, then the Church would not have felt that its biblical exegesis was challenged by Galileo's observations and theory. Bellarmine would have had no need to demand that Galileo reduce his "theory" to an "hypothesis."

[glenallen]

"Is it that you cannot comprehend English? Or is it that you are truly more Catholic than the Pope?"

oooh, oooh(raising hand) I know, I know!
He's truly more Catholic than the Pope. LOL

[Tom Montgomery]

...

[George.]

More Catholic than the Pope... :D

[sharpie]

Sam's defense of the 17th century Church with regard to Galileo is absurd.

Actually, Tom, that is a tad unfair, don't you think. The quote from Bellarmine has nothing to do with the Church practicing better science, but it does inject a healthy amount of ambiguity into the charge of the Catholic Church's literalism. "Prove your theory and we will change our exegesis" is not the stance of biblical literalists. Biblical literalists would not care a whit about any theories, this is why George gets goose bumps when creationism makes the news.

[Tom Montgomery]

Unfortunately, Bellarmine was only one man. Too bad he wasn't the Pope at the time.

The fact is Galileo spent the end of his days under house arrest and under the suspicion of heresy.

[Tom Montgomery]

By the way, Bellarmine University is just down the street from me. They are the repository for Thomas Merton's papers.

[Sam F]

Come on George. You are guilty of anachronism in unreasonably projecting your values back on to the past. I'm asking not about the past but your values right now. This is the fourth time. How about an answer?



Tell me George. do you disagree with France's proscription of Creationist books? The same thing has happened in the US.
Do you agree with a US Federal Judge's banning of a simple label that had the audacity to suggest that "...Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
The first sentence is a fact. The second sentence is just good pedagogy. Do you agree with it being banned?

Why are you so reluctant to provide your bona fides on this issue George.?

[Sam F]

BTW, the origin of the out-of-context quote that George. got from Wikipedia was a talk entitled Faith can never conflict with reason that Pope JPII gave specifically on the Galileo issue.
If the talk's title isn't enough to dispel the erroneous notion of "Biblical Literalism", the contents finish the job.

9. If contemporary culture is marked by a tendency to scientism, the cultural horizon of Galileo's age was uniform and carried the imprint of a particular philosophical formation. This unitary character of culture, which in itself is positive and desirable even in our own day, was one of the reasons for Galileo's condemnation. The majority of theologians did not recognize the formal distinction between Sacred Scripture and its interpretation, and this led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.
In fact, as Cardinal Poupard has recalled, Robert Bellarmine, who had seen what was truly at stake in the debate personally felt that, in the face of possible scientific proofs that the earth orbited round the sun, one should "interpret with great circumspection" every biblical passage which seems to affirm that the earth is immobile and "say that we do not understand, rather than affirm that what has been demonstrated is false". Before Bellarmine, this same wisdom and same respect for the divine Word guided St Augustine when he wrote: "If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly. It is not the meaning of Scripture which is opposed to the truth but the meaning which he has wanted to give to it. That which is opposed to Scripture is not what is in Scripture but what he has placed there himself, believing that this is what Scripture meant". A century ago, Pope Leo XIII echoed this advice in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus: "Truth cannot contradict truth and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself".

Cardinal Poupard has also reminded us that the sentence of 1633 was not irreformable, and that the debate which had not ceased to evolve thereafter, was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele.

10. From the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment down to our own day, the Galileo case has been a sort of "myth", in which the image fabricated out of the events was quite far removed from reality. In this perspective, the Galileo case was the symbol of the Church's supposed rejection of scientific progress, or of "dogmatic" obscurantism opposed to the free search for truth. This myth has played a considerable cultural role. It has helped to anchor a number of scientists of good faith in the idea that there was an incompatibility between the spirit of science and its rules of research on the one hand and the Christian faith on the other. A tragic mutual incomprehension has been interpreted as the reflection of a fundamental opposition between science and faith. The clarifications furnished by recent historical studies enable us to state that this sad misunderstanding now belongs to the past...
Sadly this misunderstanding persist. It illustrates the truth of the Alexander Pope's words (and the limits of Wikipedia):

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.

[glenallen]

"Faith can never conflict with reason"

The hell it can't.
Happens every time one says his prayers assuming they are heard.

[skuthorp]

"foolish and absurd"
Like that SamF, like that

[Tom Montgomery]

BTW, the origin of the... quote that George. got from Wikipedia was a talk entitled Faith can never conflict with reason that Pope JPII gave specifically on the Galileo issue.No kidding??? You mean the same talk that I quoted from extensively and provided a link to waaaayyyy back in Post# 90? The link that sharpie thanked me for providing?

Here it is again: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html

I'm confident that any reasonable person who reads this talk will come away with a different understanding of John Paul's meaning than you are asserting.

John Paul II on the error of the 17th century Church:

...the geocentric representation of the world was commonly admitted in the culture of the time as fully agreeing with the teaching of the Bible of which certain expressions, taken literally seemed to affirm geocentrism. The problem posed by theologians of that age was, therefore, that of the compatibility between heliocentrism and Scripture.

Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so....

The majority of theologians did not recognize the formal distinction between Sacred Scripture and its interpretation, and this led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation....

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.


John Paul II on the Church's position today:

In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition. The two realms are not altogether foreign to each other, they have points of contact. The methodologies proper to each make it possible to bring out different aspects of reality.

Sam, you are asking us to choose between your version of the history and John Paul's.

[Tom Montgomery]

In fact, as Cardinal Poupard has recalled, Robert Bellarmine, who had seen what was truly at stake in the debate personally felt that, in the face of possible scientific proofs that the earth orbited round the sun, one should "interpret with great circumspection" every biblical passage which seems to affirm that the earth is immobile and "say that we do not understand, rather than affirm that what has been demonstrated is false".Yes indeed, Bellarmine was one of the more enlightened churchmen of the era. Unfortunately, like St. Bernard in the 14th century with regard to the Cathar heresy, Bellarmine's view did not prevail.


Cardinal Poupard has also reminded us that the sentence of 1633 was not irreformable, and that the debate which had not ceased to evolve thereafter, was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele.1820... some 60 years after Edmond Halley successfully predicted the return of the comet named after him. Not to mention the work of Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton before him.

And small comfort for Galileo Galilei who died under house arrest.

[George.]

"Prove your theory and we will change our exegesis" is not the stance of biblical literalists. Biblical literalists would not care a whit about any theories, this is why George gets goose bumps when creationism makes the news.

Bull. Creationists and IDers claim that evolution is "unproven." They claim everything from gaps in the fossil record to "irreducible complexity" to unexplained polonium halos as "proof" that it is "unproven."

In fact, I seem to remember one or two opponents of Darwinian evolution doing so in this very bilge... ;)

As anyone who has discussed the science with a creationist knows, they will never find any proof satisfactory - to the extreme, for some, of saying that the dinosaur bones were stashed away by God to test our faith. Galileo was a wise man. He surely knew what he was dealing with when he didn't bother to offer further proof. I wouldn't persist either, if the likes of you and Sam could resort to torture to "prove" your point...

[sharpie]

Bull. Creationists and IDers claim that evolution is "unproven." They claim everything from gaps in the fossil record to "irreducible complexity" to unexplained polonium halos as "proof" that it is "unproven."

In fact, I seem to remember one or two opponents of Darwinian evolution doing so in this very bilge... ;)

As anyone who has discussed the science with a creationist knows, they will never find any proof satisfactory - to the extreme, for some, of saying that the dinosaur bones were stashed away by God to test our faith. Galileo was a wise man. He surely knew what he was dealing with when he didn't bother to offer further proof. I wouldn't persist either, if the likes of you and Sam could resort to torture to "prove" your point...

Nice try George., but you are arguing with a figment of your imagination. Neither Sam nor I have said what you say, nor are we "creationists" in the sense you portray. When you get those things straight in your mind, then it might be worth having an argument over the matter.

[George.]

You are right, Figment. You and Sam are not "creationists" strictu sensu. You are (ultra?) conservative Catholics, and yet you argue against evolution by perpetually demanding more "proof," while also demanding that the theory explain everything, right now (the end of biology ;) ).

In 1616, your Church did the same with Galileo. His proof was satisfactory to all impartial scientists - not one remained a geocentrist swayed by the Church's pseudoscience. But no matter how much further proof Galileo offered, no matter how many phenomena he explained, he knew the Church would demand more - "How about those irregularities in Mercury's orbit? And what caused Saturn's rings? Your theory can't explain it, can it, Galileo?" :rolleyes:

Given that he was under threat of torture if he brought the subject up again, I can see why he refrained from offering further "proof".

And if you and Sam had been alive back then, you would have supported the use of torture to shut him up, as long as your Church told you it was right.

[Sam F]

"Faith can never conflict with reason"

The hell it can't.
Happens every time one says his prayers assuming they are heard.

Glen, you're hardly free from that problem yourself: Happens everytime someone believes in morality but can't provide objective proof for it.
Now are you going to tell me that there's no such thing as morality, or are you going to show me empirical evidence for its existence? ;)

Fact is that whether you like it or not reason is not equivalent with empirical proof. Never has been. Never will be.
Like George.'s "argument" it's a figment of the popular imagination.

"In philosophy, reason is the ability to form and operate upon concepts in abstraction, in accordance with rationality and logic—terms with which reason shares heritage.[Wikipedia]"
and
Reason:
"4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.
6. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
7. Logic A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.
v. rea·soned,
1. To use the faculty of reason; think logically.
2. To talk or argue logically and persuasively."

[Ian McColgin]

I suspect one epistemological problem of the proof-texters who elevate their notions of reason and logic over empirical evidence and lived experience is base on a failure to understand Socratese's "midwife" metaphore.

Pity.

[George.]

Now are you going to tell me that there's no such thing as morality, or are you going to show me empirical evidence for its existence? ;)


Why don't you show us empirical evidence for the existence of morality - and not the Platonic idea of morality. The real thing, empirically demonstrable.

I know it can't be done, but at least it gets you off the hook on the Galileo affair... ;)

[Sam F]

The fifth time!


Tell me George. do you disagree with France's proscription of Creationist books? The same thing has happened in the US.
Do you agree with a US Federal Judge's banning of a simple label that had the audacity to suggest that "...Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
The first sentence is a fact. The second sentence is just good pedagogy. Do you agree with it being banned?

My my George. it's starting to look like you're avoiding answering. :D

[Sam F]

You are right, Figment. You and Sam are not "creationists" strictu sensu. You are (ultra?) conservative Catholics, and yet you argue against evolution by perpetually demanding more "proof," while also demanding that the theory explain everything, right now (the end of biology ;) ).

George. these are yet more figments… (sounds like a candy! :D)
In this matter I’m only orthodox, not conservative – that’s an important distinction that would repay the effort to understand.
And I do not demand that Evolution explain everything. You do.
I have argued the exact opposite, that Evolution does not explain everything – like the origin of morality. But you do.
And when it comes to demanding proof, you do that as well. All I, and other orthodox Catholics, have done is expect that you live up to your own demands for proof.
So far in the various Evolution threads you (and other Neo Darwinists) haven’t provided evidence enough to convict a dog – let alone convince a real skeptic.


In 1616, your Church did the same with Galileo. His proof was satisfactory to all impartial scientists - not one remained a geocentrist swayed by the Church's pseudoscience.

Not one? Do tell! Please provide evidence of this immediate transformation of ALL scientists.


But no matter how much further proof Galileo offered, no matter how many phenomena he explained, he knew the Church would demand more - "How about those irregularities in Mercury's orbit? And what caused Saturn's rings? Your theory can't explain it, can it, Galileo?"

Yet another figment. If you’d actually read the text of the Pope’s talk, instead of letting Wikipedia do your cherry picking for you, you’d have noticed this (posted for the second time)

Cardinal Poupard has also reminded us that the sentence of 1633 was not irreformable, and that the debate which had not ceased to evolve thereafter, was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele.

This imprimatur effectively removed the ban on the Copernican view and rehabilitated Galileo. It shows as historical fact that your contention that “But no matter how much further proof Galileo offered, no matter how many phenomena he explained, he knew the Church would demand more” is false.
Not to mention you’re 187 years late in noticing!
If your caricature were true, there’d be no explanation for this fellow: Angelo Secchi S.J. (1818-1878) director of the Vatican Observatory.
Type “Father of Astrophysics” into google.com and you’ll find him. ;)
He’s also the “father of spectral classification of stars” a specialist in solar astronomy he “found the link between prominences and sunspots". Both a crater on the moon and on Mars are named after him.
Don’t take my word for it, go to Wikipedia or:
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/scientists/secchi.htm
Ironically (for your contention) Father Secchi set up a Foucault pendulum to confirm the experiment that proved that the earth moved – and he set it up in a church. :D
Not only is Father Secchi a pivotal figure in astronomy, he also invented a device that’s still used today to test water clarity : the Secchi disk.
Not too bad a scientist for being a Catholic priest.



Given that he was under threat of torture if he brought the subject up again, I can see why he refrained from offering further "proof".

George., he had no more proof to offer. Torture or the threat thereof had nothing to do with it. If he’d had proof he’d have gotten scripture reinterpreted and none of this mess would have occurred.


And if you and Sam had been alive back then, you would have supported the use of torture to shut him up, as long as your Church told you it was right.

He don’t know me very well, do he? :D

I have disagreed in no uncertain terms with a Catholic Bishop in front of a crowd of about 150. Voices were raised. :D I’d do it again in a heartbeat. ;)

[George.]

You can always tell when Sam is on the run... you get serial posts, with serial quotes...

Your question, Sam? Why, that's easy. I support the proscription of teaching religious mythology as if it were science in the public schools, whether what the believers want to teach is the Koran, intelligent design, or geocentrism.

I also oppose the banning of any book. Outside science class, people should be able to read whatever they want.

But your Church didn't believe that when it published the Index, Sam. And neither would you have, if you had been around back then...

[Tom Montgomery]

I believe my posts are being ignored by Sam. It does make him appear to be rather thick, doesn't it?

[Keith Wilson]

And I do not demand that Evolution explain everything. You do.
I have argued the exact opposite, that Evolution does not explain everything – like the origin of morality. But you do.EVERYTHING!! We've discovered the theory that explains EVERYTHING!!! Oh Joy!! Oh Rapture!! :D :D :D

ROFL! Sam, you at least could argue with those who post here, rather than an opponent of you own invention.

[George.]

:D

I'm off on a charter, gentlemen. Be back after Easter, Posseidon and Iemanjá willing. I trust that while I am gone, you will not let Sam corrupt young minds unchallenged, with his pseudo-Platonic historical revisionism...

[Sam F]

You can always tell when Sam is on the run... you get serial posts, with serial quotes...

Sorry George. I'm not running anywhere, so that's another figment.
Nice try though! :D


But your Church didn't believe that when it published the Index, Sam. And neither would you have, if you had been around back then...

I must once again remind you that anachronism gets you no where - unless you're dead set on demonstrating ignorance.
You simply can't demand adherence to a set of ideas that haven't been invented yet.
And you couldn't possibly know how I, or anyone else, might act were we raised in a different time and place. This anachronistic insistence of yours is nothing less than a sad attempt at the old ad hominum argument / fallacy - with the disadvantage of being entirely based on an impossible speculation!

[Sam F]

Your question, Sam? Why, that's easy. I support the proscription of teaching religious mythology as if it were science in the public schools, whether what the believers want to teach is the Koran, intelligent design, or geocentrism.

I also oppose the banning of any book. Outside science class, people should be able to read whatever they want.

Excellent! So what is your criterion for science books? To be accepted do they, for instance, require empirical proof?

[Sam F]

Sam, you at least could argue with those who post here, rather than an opponent of you own invention.

Did George., or did he not, post his very own thread claiming the Evolution is the origin of morality (and war)?

Do I need to post the link? :D

OK...
http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=63013

[Tom Montgomery]

If you’d actually read the text of the Pope’s talk, instead of letting Wikipedia do your cherry picking for you, you’d have noticed this (posted for the second time)

Cardinal Poupard has also reminded us that the sentence of 1633 was not irreformable, and that the debate which had not ceased to evolve thereafter, was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele.
This imprimatur effectively removed the ban on the Copernican view and rehabilitated Galileo. It shows as historical fact that your contention that “But no matter how much further proof Galileo offered, no matter how many phenomena he explained, he knew the Church would demand more” is false.
Not to mention you’re 187 years late in noticing!Jaysus Sam. We noticed. The difference between you and us: you view this as an historic example of the reasonableness of the Roman Catholic Church. We view this as an example of the Church's laughably tardy acceptance of the scientific facts. It's amusing, but also sad, how you take such comfort in the solitary examples of Bellarmine and Secchi (remember the futile reasonableness of St. Bernard in an earlier century?)
I have disagreed in no uncertain terms with a Catholic Bishop in front of a crowd of about 150. Voices were raised. I’d do it again in a heartbeat.Oh, we believe it! We can easily imagine you arguing with the Pope! Let us guess: like John Paul in Faith Can Never Conflict With Reason, the Bishop's views were not conservative enough for you? LOL!

[Tom Montgomery]

So what is your criterion for science books? To be accepted do they, for instance, require empirical proof?Nope. An imprimatur is good enough for us.

http://www.falafelsex.com/blogimages/PopeBeer/PopeWithBeer.jpg

[Tom Montgomery]

I also oppose the banning of any book....

But your Church didn't believe that when it published the Index, Sam. And neither would you have, if you had been around back then...
I must once again remind you that anachronism gets you no where - unless you're dead set on demonstrating ignorance.
You simply can't demand adherence to a set of ideas that haven't been invented yet.The Babel Fish's translation: YOU ARE CORRECT SIR!


http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/0/01/Babel_Fish_diagram.jpg

[Tom Montgomery]

Ladies and gentlemen: Sam F has left the building.

And now, a word from our sponsor:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Craig_/thinkad.gif