tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post5874751587877734645..comments2024-03-17T03:55:21.696-04:00Comments on Canadian Cynic: Dear Catholic Church: You got nuthin'.CChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-36406854272120481052007-04-26T14:26:00.000-04:002007-04-26T14:26:00.000-04:00"It is quite amusing to see you say the scientist ..."It is quite amusing to see you say the scientist was superior in interpreting scripture to the whole Catholic hierarchy!"<BR/><BR/>I didn't say that; re-read the last line of my previous comment.<BR/><BR/>I understand your point,and it is simple. I think your view is, in fact, too simple and I have explained my view of the historical record. What don't you understand about that?gramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05745693347526275089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-12646853216203915832007-04-26T12:59:00.000-04:002007-04-26T12:59:00.000-04:00It is quite amusing to see you say the scientist w...It is quite amusing to see you say the scientist was superior in interpreting scripture to the whole Catholic hierarchy! What good is the pope? Why would I believe the current hitler youth version is any better?<BR/><BR/>But I don't know how you are missing my point. It is very simple.<BR/>The church ordered Galileo not to believe that the earth moves! This is a scientific question.<BR/>They said believing the sun is in the centre (claim of scientific fact) is heretical and then punished him for heresy.<BR/>What part of that do you disagree with???The American Anthropologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04554034896337568552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-24041295946427318222007-04-26T12:58:00.000-04:002007-04-26T12:58:00.000-04:00Gram's recount of the history of Galileo vs the RC...Gram's recount of the history of Galileo vs the RC is correct. The church never said,... oops let me rephrase that, the chuch never believed Galileo was wrong, but at the time church had one teaching and Galileo was pushing another. The church decided at the time bitch slap Galileo and used the most convient method to silence him at the time.<BR/><BR/>Galileo vs the Church was more about change and "Power of the Church Authority" than it was about science. While the science was the trigger event for the confrontation it basically boiled down to Galileo being a mouse and poking a large angry cat in the eye.<BR/><BR/>Still in the end, the Church was wrong on all grounds, morality, ethics and science. Galileo was wrong on the grounds of pushing faster than the power structure was will to change. His science was off as well, but essential correct within a Newtonian frame work of reference.Zorpheoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09618889126077232837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-4121244373332335572007-04-26T12:28:00.000-04:002007-04-26T12:28:00.000-04:00m@,There is nothing theological about heliocentris...m@,<BR/><BR/>There is nothing theological about heliocentrism in my opinion, but that is not why Galileo went on trial. He insisted on arguing that scripture was being improperly interpreted by the Church, which unfortunately for him had much temporal power at the time, and hence the charge of heresy.<BR/><BR/>Anthro,<BR/><BR/>I've read that same source material you quote (at least it sounds familiar) and, to me, the fact that heliocentrism was never endorsed or denied shows the Church to be siding with the predominant scientific opinion of the day, an opinion that still sided with Aristotle in antiquity. Remember, Galileo did not irrefutably prove heliocentrism for he could not account for the lack of parallax shift, something that technology could not detect at that time. Again, it was his strident insistence on his interpretation of scripture (correct, but ahead of its time) that led to his trial, as evidenced by the last part of the lines you quote. There were those in the Church who agreed that too literal an interpretation is wrong in some cases, but Galileo pushed too hard.gramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05745693347526275089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-19465412999906821312007-04-26T09:38:00.000-04:002007-04-26T09:38:00.000-04:00Hey gram,It was I who called you a stupid cracker....Hey gram,<BR/>It was I who called you a stupid cracker.<BR/>Here's why:<BR/><BR/>"Cardinal Bellarmine acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre"<BR/><BR/>"heliocentrism was never formally or officially condemned by the Catholic Church, except insofar as it held (for instance, in the formal condemnation of Galileo) that 'The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures'"<BR/><BR/>In conclusion, you are right, theology is hardly a science. And science is all about logic.The American Anthropologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04554034896337568552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-59080515843439514772007-04-25T22:08:00.000-04:002007-04-25T22:08:00.000-04:00gram, what exactly is theological about whether th...gram, what exactly is theological about whether the sun moves around the earth or the earth around the sun? Should we continue to defer to the church on that one?<BR/><BR/>This is exactly why you can't trust religion to decide where the dividing line is between theology and science. They start persecuting scientists and bombing abortion clinics before you know it.M@https://www.blogger.com/profile/13408488215496128814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-16323573901248623272007-04-25T19:58:00.000-04:002007-04-25T19:58:00.000-04:00Anonymous (whichever one called me "cracker"),My p...Anonymous (whichever one called me "cracker"),<BR/><BR/>My point was that Galileo's trial was not about his "scientific method" but for putting his nose into theology, the Church's own bailiwick. I feel quite certain that no one in this forum would call theology a science. <BR/> Leaving aside one's feelings about intellectual "persecution" of <B>any</B> kind, it is incorrect to say that the Church, which sided with the opinion of the scientific majority of the day, put Galileo on trial for his science.gramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05745693347526275089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-33366032303472706102007-04-25T17:55:00.000-04:002007-04-25T17:55:00.000-04:00Let's take a situation where the same cover up hap...<I>Let's take a situation where the same cover up happened at the even highest levels:</I><BR/><BR/>Look up <I>Crimen Sollicitationis</I>.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-88378587367449224452007-04-25T17:28:00.000-04:002007-04-25T17:28:00.000-04:00Can you give me an example where something is logi...Can you give me an example where something is logical and scientists would agree that it is logical, but they still won't agree with it? It's a contradiction.<BR/><BR/>As for the moral truths, can you give me an argument for a set of moral beliefs you think are correct? Will your argument be logical or illogical?? Or will you give no argument at all and just try to force people to comply?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-45993441846064345812007-04-25T17:22:00.000-04:002007-04-25T17:22:00.000-04:00I'd say that an organization that enables and cove...I'd say that an organization that enables and covers up the raping of children has relinquished any right to say anything on matters of morality.<BR/><BR/>-dAVEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-11177543673324314402007-04-25T15:25:00.000-04:002007-04-25T15:25:00.000-04:00Gram you stupid cracker!Your counter argument that...Gram you stupid cracker!<BR/>Your counter argument that the church is supportive of science is to say that Galileo was persecuted for disagreeing with the church, but on an entirely different matter?<BR/>Supporting science *requires* letting people think what they want.<BR/><BR/>This is why scientists are also better are finding out moral truths.<BR/> <BR/>And I agree Hawking is a damned liar!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-11935478400805584872007-04-25T14:52:00.000-04:002007-04-25T14:52:00.000-04:00I'll pray for you, Ti-guy.I'll pray for <B>you</B>, Ti-guy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-2810530711452427022007-04-25T14:36:00.000-04:002007-04-25T14:36:00.000-04:00This Pope's just a place-holder. The old nazi/ped...This Pope's just a place-holder. The old nazi/pedophile enabler will be dead in a few years. Then maybe the old virgins in dresses in the College of Cardinals will wisen up finally and pick someone who isn't a lunatic.<BR/><BR/>...there. I hope that pissed some self-righeous arrogant holy-roller the hell off.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-78329274799228880542007-04-25T14:28:00.000-04:002007-04-25T14:28:00.000-04:00"Historically, Galileo. Contemporary example, Hawk..."<I>Historically, Galileo. Contemporary example, Hawking being told by the pope what is and is not suitable subjects for him to study. Also, Kansas.</I>"<BR/><BR/>The prevailing theory of cosmology in Galileo's day was geocentricism, not heliocentrism; scientists supported Aristotlean ideas about the universe. Galileo pushed beyond science into theology by arguing how the Church, or any believer, should interpret the Bible, a much more sensitive subject in those times, and thus ended up on trial for heresy. <BR/>Hawking's account of John Paul II's speech to the 1981 Vatican Conference is unsupported: it appears to be an anecdote he used to embellish his book, <I>A Brief History of Time</I>.<BR/>As for Kansas, I assume you are referring to the ID controversy. I am unaware of any papal pronouncements on that subject.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-90203489960362366862007-04-25T13:03:00.000-04:002007-04-25T13:03:00.000-04:00I would also add to the discussion by iterating th...I would also add to the discussion by iterating that the 'church' should focus on 'the plank in their eyes' with regards to church fragmentation. I mean it's all well and good that the pope is passing edicts 'for the world' as to what we can put in the 'realm of science' vs the 'realm of God', yet there are more and more congregations leaving 'established' denominations and forming their own. If God is all-encompassing, why so many splits in the church?<BR/>Oh wait, 'why?' is a question for science, not for religion--religion is just to obey.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-28243635205158191652007-04-25T12:37:00.000-04:002007-04-25T12:37:00.000-04:00Mr. Anonymous,The church does oppose scientific me...Mr. Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>The church does oppose scientific method when it doesn't suit their needs. Historically, Galileo. Contemporary example, Hawking being told by the pope what is and is not suitable subjects for him to study. Also, Kansas.<BR/><BR/>But I believe CC's bigger point, which I think is probably correct, is that on these questions of morality that scientific method cannot address, why would I listen to the pope any more than Stephen Hawking?<BR/><BR/>This is because science IS logic IS the *only* source of ultimate knowledge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-4116194360908679972007-04-25T12:28:00.000-04:002007-04-25T12:28:00.000-04:00And inventing a god and saying that HE made everyt...And inventing a god and saying that HE made everything and provides meaning for your life is a valid response to the big questions, ... why exactly?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-37794840175782379922007-04-25T12:06:00.000-04:002007-04-25T12:06:00.000-04:00CC,While I enjoy reading your posts from time to t...CC,<BR/><BR/>While I enjoy reading your posts from time to time, I think you are way off the mark as far as reason goes. First of all let's get one thing straight here, the Catholic Church fully accepts the process of scientific method as a mode of inquiry. This is written in the Catechism and many other places - look it up. Many of the great scientists were and are believers in God.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Secondly, you have to realize that not all questions that can be asked by human beings can be answered by the scientific method. Questions of morality (i.e. what is right and wrong) cannot be answered by using this method for instance. This is part of what the Pope is talking about.<BR/><BR/>Thirdly, do not confuse the scientific method, which is a great tool for learning about our universe, with the generic term 'science', which is used in an almost quasi-religious fashion today as a source of ultimate knowledge.<BR/><BR/>The scientific method is only one tool of many that we use to answer the questions of our existence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-41318165295172342472007-04-25T10:30:00.000-04:002007-04-25T10:30:00.000-04:00anonymous writes:"You didn't bring up an issue, CC...anonymous writes:<BR/><BR/>"<I>You didn't bring up an issue, CC.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I most certainly did. I made the claim that the Church has absolutely nothing of any value to say on any subject, then I proceeded to provide the evidence for that claim.<BR/><BR/>And, at this point, unless you start addressing that claim, I'll be deleting any further comments.<BR/><BR/>Either address what I wrote, or fuck off. The choice is yours.CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-41089251032352761632007-04-25T10:28:00.000-04:002007-04-25T10:28:00.000-04:00anon, you can't parse the sentences and you respon...anon, you can't parse the sentences and you respond with a sentence fragment. make your argument, convince the unconvinced or shove off.Lindsay Stewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13461043718147845594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-83469295009827691942007-04-25T10:26:00.001-04:002007-04-25T10:26:00.001-04:00You didn't bring up an issue, CC. You mindlessly ...You didn't bring up an issue, CC. You mindlessly attacked the Church, but offered no argument supporting your hatred of it or its position on science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-28658550580283145202007-04-25T10:26:00.000-04:002007-04-25T10:26:00.000-04:00anon, i said nothing about the pope's nazi connect...anon, i said nothing about the pope's nazi connection. he was a child at the time. i don't consider that a valid condemnation of the adult man. it was you that positied a lack of knowledge of church history, i just gave some examples of that history. somehow you have decidded that i am not worthy. great. that's very well reasoned. as for understanding, you haven't made yourself clear. prove your position, the onus is on you to make yourself understood. so far you have disqualified a position based on naughty words and your own grand, self-righteous pomp. you haven't disproven anything else said here and you certainly haven't proven the value of what you claim as reason.Lindsay Stewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13461043718147845594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-70424617370286906942007-04-25T10:24:00.000-04:002007-04-25T10:24:00.000-04:00English, please, Ape.English, please, Ape.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-41061262902310523762007-04-25T10:23:00.001-04:002007-04-25T10:23:00.001-04:00As a brief reminder, let us all recall this increa...As a brief reminder, let us all recall this increasingly-relevant excerpt from my original article:<BR/><BR/>"<I>... I'll go out on a limb and bet that no one who takes offense to the above will actually try to address any of the issues.</I>"<BR/><BR/>So far, my money seems fairly safe, doesn't it?CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-86178624752091694572007-04-25T10:23:00.000-04:002007-04-25T10:23:00.000-04:00"There ... doesn't that read so much better?" -- C..."There ... doesn't that read so much better?" -- Cynic<BR/><BR/>No, because it's illiterate.<BR/><BR/>Fix your grammar and try again.<BR/><BR/>And try to realize that my saying you are similar to a child in not making an argument; it's stating my impression of you. <BR/><BR/>Go back to school, baby boy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com