The Internet Is Killing Religion

Sendraks · **#41** by **Sendraks** » May 12, 2014 3:39 pm

Mick wrote: The scientific evidence was not denied or censured, remember.

Didn't the church of the day ban copernicus writings.
Is that not supression?

Mick · **#42** by **Mick** » May 12, 2014 3:42 pm

Oldskeptic wrote:
Mick wrote:I've wrote a bit more about this here. You guys can see that I cite historians on these matters. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p1698140

You didn't cite historians. You copied and pasted from this blog.
http://inroadstophilosophy.blogspot.com ... -1900.html

That's an old blog of mine. I forgot the password.

Mick · **#43** by **Mick** » May 12, 2014 3:43 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Mick wrote: The scientific evidence was not denied or censured, remember.

Didn't the church of the day ban copernicus writings.
Is that not supression?

I can talk about that later. Right now we are on a different topic---Galileo.

Fallible · **#44** by **Fallible** » May 12, 2014 3:46 pm

Mick wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
Mick wrote:I've wrote a bit more about this here. You guys can see that I cite historians on these matters. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p1698140

You didn't cite historians. You copied and pasted from this blog.
http://inroadstophilosophy.blogspot.com ... -1900.html

That's an old blog of mine. I forgot the password.

Oh yeah, I remember this -http://inroadstophilosophy.blogspot.co.uk/ :rofl:

Mick · **#45** by **Mick** » May 12, 2014 3:46 pm

Fallible wrote:
Mick wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
Mick wrote:I've wrote a bit more about this here. You guys can see that I cite historians on these matters. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p1698140

You didn't cite historians. You copied and pasted from this blog.
http://inroadstophilosophy.blogspot.com ... -1900.html

That's an old blog of mine. I forgot the password.

Oh yeah, I remember this -http://inroadstophilosophy.blogspot.co.uk/

Clive Durdle · **#46** by **Clive Durdle** » May 12, 2014 4:01 pm

Just watched Creation, the film about Darwin publishing origins. Why didn't dinosaurs kill the gods in the nineteenth century?

http://vimeo.com/8921583

Sendraks · **#47** by **Sendraks** » May 12, 2014 4:31 pm

Mick wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Mick wrote: The scientific evidence was not denied or censured, remember.

Didn't the church of the day ban copernicus writings.
Is that not supression?

I can talk about that later. Right now we are on a different topic---Galileo.

It's the same topic Mick.

Oldskeptic · **#48** by **Oldskeptic** » May 12, 2014 4:57 pm

Mick wrote:
chairman bill wrote:
Mick wrote:I've wrote a bit more about this here. You guys can see that I cite historians on these matters. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p1698140

Did you miss the above post by Oldskeptic, or just chose to ignore the inconvenient?

I don't have the time right now. However, I pointed to a previous post of mine, one which points to the controversy of whether the document cited by oldskeptic is something of a forgery. Bellarmine's injunction against Galileo was much softer than that which we read from the text now. Oldskeptic doesn't even seem aware that there is a debate about its authenticity.

You don't know enough about it to even know which document you're talking about. The debate, if you could call it that, is over the injunction read to Galileo on Feb, 26, 1616. Not a letter as your "historian" calls it. The letter mentioned is dated May, 26, 1616, and is signed by Bellarmine. This letter was for Galileo's use to combat gossip that he had been convicted of anything, but did say that Galileo had been warned that heliocentrism could not be held or defended because it was contrary to Holy Scripture. The difference between the injunction and the letter is that the injunction reads "not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing" while the letter says "hold or defend". It doesn't really matter because the injunction and the letter say pretty much the same thing.

I don't know why it would matter to you, either way the aim was to suppress heliocentrism.

The verdict that I posted in this thread earlier is something entirely different. Galileo was convicted of heresy for promoting a scientific hypothesis that contradicted Church doctrine. And the verdict clearly shows that the science was suppressed not because it was wrong or sloppy, but because it was contrary to Holly Scripture.

Clive Durdle · **#49** by **Clive Durdle** » May 12, 2014 5:14 pm

So heliocentrism must still be contrary to holy scripture? Shouldn't we insist xians keep to the standards they have set themselves and insist they be geocentrist?

Oldskeptic · **#50** by **Oldskeptic** » May 12, 2014 5:50 pm

Mick wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Mick wrote:
I don't see this as the suppression of science.

Well done Mick. Another amazingly compelling argument. Rest assurred we're all massively swayed by "what you see" as being a definitive argument of something or another.

Mick wrote:Basically, it is the idea that if he's gonna rock the boat hard, given the precarious times, he better be able to prove his shit, and until he can, he is to treat it as a hypothesis.

Basically this about the Church not wanting any sort of challenege to its position as the aboslute authority on the nature of heaven and earth. Hence, the supression of science.

Well, I supported that idea. You just omitted it. You guys confuse the academic freedom to say such-and-such is true with science itself. The scientific evidence was not denied or censured, remember.

Yes it was. Denied, ignored, censured, and censored.

It was only that this fellow could not state that his hypothesis or theory was true before he went ahead and proved it.

Not true. It was that Galileo could not discuss it at all. He couldn't even attempt to prove without discussing it.

This was motivated by an epistemological norm AND the sensitive political nature of the issue. It is as if the church said "if you're going to go that route, you first need to prove your shit.

There's no as ifs here. The Church made it a crime to try to prove it.

Otherwise, you risk further destabilizing the political atmosphere." That doesn't strike me as oppression-it is just practicality, precaution and sensitivity to the times."

So, The Church had to suppress Galileo in order to keep itself safely in power.

It is crucial that you guys interpret this event from the background of the reformation and just how destabilizing it was.

It's not crucial, and it doesn't matter. Whether the Church had good reason to suppress the science or not, it was still suppression.

You guys oversimplify things.

Well it actually is pretty simple. The Church stood in the way of any science that was contrary to Holly Scripture.

Mick · **#51** by **Mick** » May 12, 2014 5:59 pm

Notice the lack of scholarly support for what oldskeptic says. He's making shit up.

Oldskeptic · **#52** by **Oldskeptic** » May 12, 2014 7:05 pm

Mick wrote:Notice the lack of scholarly support for what oldskeptic says. He's making shit up.

I'm sure you have some specific examples. Well maybe not since you haven't brought any up. You're probably just lashing out because you're desperate because you don't have anything to counter what I've written here.

Deremensis · **#53** by **Deremensis** » May 12, 2014 7:37 pm

I'm curious how Downey calculated that the rise of the internet can account for 25% of the drop in religious affiliation. I'm not really an expert on statistics (yet!), but I'm not entirely sure how he would have been able to do that. Can anyone elaborate?

From a layman's point of view (mine), it appears to me that there was just a correlation in internet usage and reduced religious affiliation. I'm sure there are lots of such correlations. Perhaps widespread internet usage indicates a higher standard of living, and a higher standard of living also correlates with/causes a reduction in religious affiliation (as an example - I have no evidence for this being true).

Weaver · **#54** by **Weaver** » May 12, 2014 9:16 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:So heliocentrism must still be contrary to holy scripture? Shouldn't we insist xians keep to the standards they have set themselves and insist they be geocentrist?

Something about Scripture being inspired by the dog, and everything in it is true and timeless - after all, that's the reason we're supposed to keep suppressing teh gayz, right?

Mick · **#55** by **Mick** » May 12, 2014 9:30 pm

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:
Mick wrote:
chairman bill wrote:
Mick wrote:I've wrote a bit more about this here. You guys can see that I cite historians on these matters. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p1698140

Did you miss the above post by Oldskeptic, or just chose to ignore the inconvenient?

I don't have the time right now. However, I pointed to a previous post of mine, one which points to the controversy of whether the document cited by oldskeptic is something of a forgery. Bellarmine's injunction against Galileo was much softer than that which we read from the text now. Oldskeptic doesn't even seem aware that there is a debate about its authenticity.

Are we talking about the 1633 verdict quoted be Old Skeptic (as opposed to the 1616 precept/letters)? If so, could you provide some links or citations that acknowledge and clarify the controversy over its authenticity?

You should read this in full. Oldskeptic should too. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39440712/ns/t ... e-science/
The point is not that i agree with everything mentioned here, but it gives a better picture of the common caricature of the Galileo affair. The author misses the conflict with Urban, and this is essential to viewing the affair as more about squabbles with powerful men rather than between religion and science or the church and Science.

Weaver · **#56** by **Weaver** » May 12, 2014 9:41 pm

So, once again, science wasn't being suppressed, but he was put on trial the second time for violating the precept from the first trial which told him not to teach or defend heliocentrism.

But that's not suppressing science. No, it's just a legal misunderstanding. He wasn't being told to stop doing science, just being ordered to stop talking about specific aspects because they contradicted scripture, and that was important because the release of this information, which let's not forget was supported by the best science available at the time, might upset the Church's hold on the non-philosophical masses.

No, not suppressing science. Not at all.

:roll:

Mick · **#57** by **Mick** » May 12, 2014 9:52 pm

Weaver wrote:So, once again, science wasn't being suppressed, but he was put on trial the second time for violating the precept from the first trial which told him not to teach or defend heliocentrism.

But that's not suppressing science. No, it's just a legal misunderstanding. He wasn't being told to stop doing science, just being ordered to stop talking about specific aspects because they contradicted scripture, and that was important because the release of this information, which let's not forget was supported by the best science available at the time, might upset the Church's hold on the non-philosophical masses.

No, not suppressing science. Not at all.

Like the author of that article, you're forgetting Bellarmine's letter and the conflict with Urban.

Precambrian Rabbi · **#58** by **Precambrian Rabbi** » May 12, 2014 9:53 pm

Mick wrote:
Precambrian Rabbi wrote:
Mick wrote:
chairman bill wrote:

Did you miss the above post by Oldskeptic, or just chose to ignore the inconvenient?

I don't have the time right now. However, I pointed to a previous post of mine, one which points to the controversy of whether the document cited by oldskeptic is something of a forgery. Bellarmine's injunction against Galileo was much softer than that which we read from the text now. Oldskeptic doesn't even seem aware that there is a debate about its authenticity.

Are we talking about the 1633 verdict quoted be Old Skeptic (as opposed to the 1616 precept/letters)? If so, could you provide some links or citations that acknowledge and clarify the controversy over its authenticity?

You should read this in full. Oldskeptic should too. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39440712/ns/t ... e-science/
The point is not that i agree with everything mentioned here, but it gives a better picture of the common caricature of the Galileo affair. The author misses the conflict with Urban, and this is essential to viewing the affair as more about squabbles with powerful men rather than between religion and science or the church and Science.

I have read it, as it happens. What relevance does it have to my question regarding the authenticity of the 1633 verdict quoted by Old Skeptic?

Weaver · **#59** by **Weaver** » May 12, 2014 10:16 pm

Mick, how about we ignore the second trial totally, with its power struggles and politics.

The simple fact remains that in the first trial he was ordered to dtop discussing or defending his hypothesis and the heliocentric theory.

That is the Church suppressing science - and it worked for years.

Mick · **#60** by **Mick** » May 12, 2014 10:27 pm

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:
Mick wrote:
Precambrian Rabbi wrote:
Mick wrote:

I don't have the time right now. However, I pointed to a previous post of mine, one which points to the controversy of whether the document cited by oldskeptic is something of a forgery. Bellarmine's injunction against Galileo was much softer than that which we read from the text now. Oldskeptic doesn't even seem aware that there is a debate about its authenticity.

Are we talking about the 1633 verdict quoted be Old Skeptic (as opposed to the 1616 precept/letters)? If so, could you provide some links or citations that acknowledge and clarify the controversy over its authenticity?

You should read this in full. Oldskeptic should too. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39440712/ns/t ... e-science/
The point is not that i agree with everything mentioned here, but it gives a better picture of the common caricature of the Galileo affair. The author misses the conflict with Urban, and this is essential to viewing the affair as more about squabbles with powerful men rather than between religion and science or the church and Science.

I have read it, as it happens. What relevance does it have to my question regarding the authenticity of the 1633 verdict quoted by Old Skeptic?

It mentions them, those hypotheses. The verdict is based on previous submissions. The verdict is based upon a previous document, though there is debate whether it is genuine.

The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Re: The Internet Is Killing Religion

Who is online