-"A classic example to illustrate the resilience of religion and its evolutionary nature occurred in the Catholic Church. In the 15 thcentury, most of the Roman Catholic Church still believed that the sun revolved around the earth."
-Quote
My response:
To clarify, this was the prevalent view of the Scientists of the time. It wasn't like the Church believed in a geocentric view and was oppressing a group of valiant non-believing scientist that held a heliocentric view. This is not true. The church funded and was at the forefront of science during this era. For example during these times the Jesuits were known for their highly respected Scientist in Rome.
-"Those who thought otherwise were severely reprimanded, or put in jail, or tortured, or, worst yet,executed."
-Quote
My Response:
This is false. Though the geocentric view was the reigning viewpoint at that time amongst scientist both views existed and you were not reprimanded for holding it. In fact it was freely discussed and studied within the church during Galileo's time and the time preceding him.
"-"At this time, devout Christians felt that their sacredbook, the Bible, indicated that the earth was the center of theuniverse. If astronomers, like Galileo and Copernicus, showedevidence to the contrary it would mean that the Bible was wrong. And,if the Bible were wrong, it would mean that God was wrong. And if Godwas wrong…well, he was no longer God. Such a thought was impossiblein light of the Church's strident orthodoxy. Hence, to question theBible's astronomical version of cosmology was akin to questioningGod's Supreme Authority and Knowledge."
-Quote
My Response:
Again this is a false assumption, and this was not the official teaching of the Church. It is true that it was held by Church clergy and members that this may contradict their particular interpretations of the scripture but in no way would it or did it disprove God or threaten to disprove the Church's understanding. The church issued a disciplinary ruling regarding a scientist who was supporting an unproven theory and demanding that the entire church bend to his understanding of scripture in order to fit his interpretation. There was simply no way, or no reason the church should have bent to Galileo. At the time, there wasn't even the ability to prove his theory correct. It's actually a good thing that the church didn't rush to embrace his view because it ultimately turned out that his ideas weren't even entirely accurate. He believed the sun was the center of the Universe itself. Current science has proven that Galileo and the opposition were both partially right and wrong. Galileo may have been correct regarding the mobility of the earth but was wrong in the immobility of the sun. His opposition was correct in holding to the mobility of the sun but wrong about the earth. If the Catholic Church just rushed in and accepted Galileo's views. (and there were many in the Catholic church who supported his views) The church would have embraced what current Science has ultimately disproved.
That would have been the real blunder.
"It is little wonder,therefore, that the scientist Bruno burned at the stake. Better for afalse believer to die than to have millions of faithful have theirbelief in God shattered."
-Quote
My Response:
He died as a heretic and this had nothing to do with his scientific views Regarding Copernican thought. By the way Nicolaus Copernicus was a Catholic cleric, and his views were not suppressed by the church in fact he delayed publication of a book regarding his Heliocentric view, not for fear of the church, as it was freely discussed in the church but fear of his scientific colleagues at the time.
-"Five centuries later, however, Pope John-Paul II essentially apologized for the Church's blunder and itsmaltreatment of intellectual pioneers (this same pope acknowledgedthe irrefutable evidence of evolution)."
-Quote
My Response:
The Pope wasn't admitting that the Church was wrong in its official teachings. He was apologizing for the bad treatment of people inhistory by members of the Church. In no way is this the church conceding and or admitting that the church was a separate and opposing force of science. Also In no way did the pope acknowledge and state that the theory of Evolution was "irrefutable" The theory of Evolution is still exactly that. A theory. And it is still debated. The church rejects Darwinian Evolution which outright rejects God, but allows for either Creationism or Theological Evolution. (which is God induced Evolution so to speak).
-"Above is the question of evolution disproving the Bible and ofhistory. Galileo proved that the world was round, not flat and he waskilled for going against the Church."
-Quote
My Response:
The fathers of the Church taught that the Earth was a Sphere 1000 years before Galileo. That's not even counting every other Catholic before Galileo that held that point of view. The Church did not kill Galileo. Nor, was he silenced because of his heliocentric view. He wasn't the only one with that view at that time. It was the way hewent about it as I stated earlier.
-"The Spanish Inquisition and theCrusades are more instances in which historians can be critical ofthe Roman Catholic Church and its abuse of power."
-Quote
My Response:
This is a blanket statement, that requires further clarification to understand what point you are trying to make here. If you areassuming that the crusades and the inquisition were random powertrips by the Catholic Church than this is an inaccurate understanding of history. Though I cannot say more without knowing what specifically you are talking about here.
-"I pondered this question one-day in sixth grade class. Why were there no dinosaurs in the Bible? We know for a fact that dinosaurs existbut there is nothing in the Bible about them. This is because the early writers of the Bible didn't know about dinosaurs, they had not been discovered in their lifetime, but later. You can't write about what you don't know. It is said that God inspired the early writers of the Bible. You can believe this or not…"
–Quote
My Response:
I've often pondered this myself. I've always speculated where the dinosaurs fit into all of this and if all the theories regarding them are correct or far fetched ideas masquerading as true science. Admittedly, I haven't looked into dinosaurs thoroughly enough to draw some sort of Conclusion, though I watched Jurassic park 1,2, and 3. =P
-"A reader can take the stories literally or not or they can just be read and reserve judgement on whether they believe everything they read or hear."
-Quote
My Response:
This goes for everything we read and hear. We must Investigate thoroughly before making a judgment. Many of the things that were written here were inaccurate about the Catholic church and it all goes back to my other post titled "When Fundamentalism drowns out Reality" Facts are important.
Fundamentalism isn't just a Bible Christian yelling out bible verses and quotes from Chick Publications in order to prove the existence of God and their truth as irrefutable fact. Fundamentalism is just as alive and well in a Secular Atheist quoting Darwinism Evolution theories and quotes from the book " The God delusion" as irrefutable facts.
They are both extreme faith
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment