Interview With Vatican Astronomer

[XIX]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1331493743' post='2399113']
I wonder if he meant the idea that faith and science were incompatible with another. I'm not sure how that plays out historically, but there is the possibility that he's *gasp* wrong.
[/quote]
I only lurk here anymore for the most part, but I have to say that you rock.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331697157' post='2400467']
And does the Church have the right to determine what is and is not proper scientific methodology and conclusions again?
[/quote]

This is the key question.

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1331697212' post='2400468']
Well, yeah, sure, but it still doesn't really change that he was right and the theologians in the Church had to re-evaluate how they were interpreting scripture. But people really do blow his whole situation out of proportion. You'd think that a formal apology would finally put this issue to rest...

But then again, pulling out Galileo on Catholics in a discussion about science is pretty much a subcategory of Godwin's Law.
[/quote]

Basilisa Marie, you're probably one of the most sober minded people here, who I think demands the utmost respect. I think that you're as genuine and sincere as His Holiness Pope John Paul II. Having said that, this issue hasn't been put to rest because many other Catholics, particularly some that have replied on this thread, have made a judgement call that goes against the very foundation for that apology that the Catholic Church has made. These are individuals saying that Galileo was the one at fault and therefore the Catholic Church has nothing to apologize for and shouldn't have appologized.

This is no different then if we'd had a verbal disagreement and I'd physically assaulted you. Then apologized, while still insisting that I was the one who was correct. Malcolm X once referred to this as stabbing someone in the back with a six inch knife, then pulling out the knife two inches, while claiming to heal the wounds of the past. These individuals want to re-write history and make Galileo out to be the aggressor, as you have read on this thread. It wasn't Galileo that imprisoned the Catholic Church for their opinion, rather it was Galileo that was imprisoned and had his liberties suspended.

If all Catholics were as genuine as you, this issue and many others would have been layed to rest a long time ago.


[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331697885' post='2400474']
I think the point of the affair, for me at least, is not the the Church authorities bears and present guilt for the stupidity and pettiness of their predecessors . Rather, it is a demonstration of why religious postulates should never be used to trump evidence based argument and why the Church should never be given any sort of veto power in our society. It is a private religious confession. It's merits are subjective. There's no proof to it and no rational foundation for it. There is, therefore no way to argue against it. You can't use math to argue against 'The scriptures say that the Sun revolves around the earth and the scriptures come from God, therefore you are wrong QED' Ecclesiastical claims take the argument away from a common, and objectively accessible plane and moves it onto a plane where men of dubious qualifications have the final say and their decision has no real check.[/quote]

This is a great point. Professor Alister McGrath of Oxford, a former atheist, wrote once something that goes along this same lines in his book "the Dawkins Delusion". He wrote that Atheists such as Richard Dawkins that believe that they can defeat religioin through scientific means are incorrect. The claims that religion make are not meant to be scientific but metaphysical. And even if you defeat all science behind religion, it doesn't take away the questions of purpose and intentionality.

[quote]The Church had honest reasons for thinking Galileo was wrong. His claims were contrary to Aristotelian physics and, since math did not have the prominence that it does today, his evidence did seem weak. We often don't appreciate how mind shattering heliocentrism was (Nietzsche has a beautiful quote about this, but I can't remember where I read it). The point wasn't that the Church's caution was totally groundless, but that they never should have been (and should never be again) given the power that they had over the secular.
[/quote]

This is where we disagree. I don't think that the church had honest reasons. I think that with every group that suspends other people's liberties who disagree with them, it was malicious in that it was about controling someone elses life.

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1331709152' post='2400514']
I don't think the Vatican Astronomer here is at all historically illiterate or anything, Hasan, you have taken a single statement and decided that his view of history is perposterous and wrong, without considering the possibility that your interpretation of his statement was what was preposterous and, while you have now incited a Galileo debate (and oh what fun such things are, it is just too bad we don't have some Sungenite modern geocentrists along for the ride, they do make it all the more fun), I think it only fair that I defend poor Bro. Guy the Vatican Astronomer. (I suggest that in furtherance of this conversation, we all pronounce his name like "Bro Guy" pronounced like the english word guy and the slang word bro, because it just seems like a razzle dazzle thing to do lol)

I believe he is actually trying to say that the idea that science and faith are mutually exclusive was unknown within the Catholic community prior to the 19th century. In the 19th century onwards, there was more and more of an anti-science science sentiment within the Church. of course the idea was promoted outside of the Church in prior times, but it was in the 19th century and onwards that within the Church the faithful began to basically concede defeat among the sciences and just say, basically, "so much the worse for science", and among Christians you devolved into a bit of insanity where dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to confuse people and all that kind of nonsense.... this is the idea that arose in the 19th century that he's arguing against, the "see no science, hear no science, speak no science" attitude of fundamentalists within the faith.

I don't think he was clear enough here, but I do think that this is entirely what he was intended to say. He's talking to Catholics about the idea among Catholics that science and faith are incompatible, saying that before the 19th century no Catholic would think that at all. listen to him again with this interpretation and tell me that I'm wrong; I suggest giving Bro Guy the Vatican Astronomer the benefit of the doubt here, he's an educated man, and he's a bona-fide scientist, and I don't think he's just being daft. I think he's trying to remind Catholics of their patrimony in the sciences, trying to remind them that they should have nothing to fear from science, for it is just the pursuit of the truth, trying to remind them that Faith and Reason are not opposing forces even if faithful fundamentalists since the 19th century have suggested that they are.
[/quote]

It's possible. His comments seem in line with the apologetic claim I heard often in the Church which used simmilar arguments to suggest that somehow the modern (apparent) gulf between science and the Church was really just a modern psychological error (I read similar things from Muslim writers like Seyyed Hosein Naser who essentially suggests that it is a Western psychological neurosis). It's entirely possible that I'm wrong. But I don't think that the fact that he is almost certainly an intelligent and educated scientist means that he is immune from believing patently wrong things. Seyyed Hossein Naser is a brilliant man. He graduated with honors in mathematics from MIT, a doctorate in geophysics from Harvard, and is an imminent historian. He's far more intelligent than I am and I'm sure this Priest is as well. But that being said, Naser often lapses into sophistry to defend Islamic law and has some wacky ideas.

I guess I'm actually inclined to think that you're probably right, but since I've already typed out the above I'll post this. And that way I won't have to retype it if I change my mind in the morning!

[4588686]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1331710429' post='2400516']

This is where we disagree. I don't think that the church had honest reasons. I think that with every group that suspends other people's liberties who disagree with them, it was malicious in that it was about controling someone elses life.
[/quote]

I guess you are right. I should have said that there were points that could cause a reasonable person at the time to doubt Galelio's theories. The motive of the Churchmen involved do seem suspect.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331712918' post='2400522']
I guess you are right. I should have said that there were points that could cause a reasonable person at the time to doubt Galelio's theories. The motive of the Churchmen involved do seem suspect.
[/quote]

I'd like to add for everyone that reads this, I'm not singling out the Catholic Church. This goes for all ruling powers that behave similarly. I'm just as critical, if not more so, on people like the Dalai Lama, who I completely despise. During the reign of the Lama class, they abused power just as much as the next rulers. Don't be fooled by their propaganda that claims the Dalai Lama is just about peace.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNDryTD-Viw&feature=endscreen&NR=1"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNDryTD-Viw&feature=endscreen&NR=1[/url]

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1331710429' post='2400516']
Basilisa Marie, you're probably one of the most sober minded people here, who I think demands the utmost respect. I think that you're as genuine and sincere as His Holiness Pope John Paul II. Having said that, this issue hasn't been put to rest because many other Catholics, particularly some that have replied on this thread, have made a judgement call that goes against the very foundation for that apology that the Catholic Church has made. These are individuals saying that Galileo was the one at fault and therefore the Catholic Church has nothing to apologize for and shouldn't have appologized.

This is no different then if we'd had a verbal disagreement and I'd physically assaulted you. Then apologized, while still insisting that I was the one who was correct. Malcolm X once referred to this as stabbing someone in the back with a six inch knife, then pulling out the knife two inches, while claiming to heal the wounds of the past. These individuals want to re-write history and make Galileo out to be the aggressor, as you have read on this thread. It wasn't Galileo that imprisoned the Catholic Church for their opinion, rather it was Galileo that was imprisoned and had his liberties suspended.

If all Catholics were as genuine as you, this issue and many others would have been layed to rest a long time ago.
[/quote]

D'awww. Shush you. Your flattery shall make me blush, and I'll have to start trolling so my boyfriend doesn't get jealous. But I'm no more genuine than most other people here (because they are too!), I probably just don't have enough scruples about calling out theologians when they make a mistake. It doesn't bother me when people in the Church "change their minds."

Although I would like to add that if the Church is running schools, it has a right to determine what is taught in them and how. Not sure exactly how related that idea is to the question Hasan pointed out, if at all. But we can't know what the motives of the "churchmen" were, malicious or not. My interpretation of history thus far has taught me that more likely than not, these people where trying to defend scripture and their faith. That, I think, is a noble cause, even if the results are less than satisfactory. Because, I mean, think about it - these scientists were flipping the theologians' entire cosmology on it's head, and if that suddenly became suspect, what else about their theology was also suspect? I mean, hello, existential crisis here. I can't really blame them for freaking out. Yes, we now know it definitely wasn't the right thing to do, because scripture scholars eventually adjusted how they interpreted scripture. But we have to remember that their cosmology was probably similar to Jewish cosmology, which had been around for over 5000 years. Can we cut these guys a little slack, at least in the motives department?

[RezaMikhaeil]

There is no doubt that their response was human. That's why no human being should be considered infallible in these matters and have that sort of control over other human beings.

As far as what is being taught in Catholic Schools. I completely agree that privately funded Catholic Schools should have the right to teach whatever they want. However that isn't to say that there is no danger in that but no more danger then the government telling them what to teach. Both use politics to favor one inaccurate version of history over another. Having said that, it's important to note that Catholic Schools that are mandated by the government, such as those mandated on native americans do not have those same rights. They were extraordinarily cruel to native american communities and should be judged accordingly.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331503885' post='2399168']
I haven't made that my personal mission. But I do get defensive and therefore aggressive when I constantly see people here unfairly disparaging, being critical towards, or insulting things that I care about deeply.
[/quote]

You're a very passionate person - which is a really good thing. Never lose that passion!

[Laudate_Dominum]

Amen to whatever Aloysius said. And again, teh video was too short. There are full interviews on teh interwebs and his blog. He explains his pov more fully, if anyone is curious.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1331737676' post='2400569']
There is no doubt that their response was human. That's why no human being should be considered infallible in these matters and have that sort of control over other human beings.

As far as what is being taught in Catholic Schools. I completely agree that privately funded Catholic Schools should have the right to teach whatever they want. However that isn't to say that there is no danger in that but no more danger then the government telling them what to teach. Both use politics to favor one inaccurate version of history over another. Having said that, it's important to note that Catholic Schools that are mandated by the government, such as those mandated on native americans do not have those same rights. They were extraordinarily cruel to native american communities and should be judged accordingly.
[/quote]

If I'm reading your implication right, I think my appropriate response is to point out that that's not how papal infallibility works.

As far as the schools, I meant especially schools back then. The Catholic Church WAS the school system, so they had more control and more of a vested interest in what was going on. Since there really were no lines between science and theology and politics and LIFE itself, things bled over more and were way messier. I guess my whole point of even talking about this is to further emphasize that it's important to always try to judge people in history by their own standards, and not only by our own.

And on the Catholic side, various theologians realizing that Native Americans actually do have souls is another point where Catholic theologians changed their minds, one that I find even more darkly hilarious than Galileo. Our moral theology/senior seminar professor told us that one day, and the one girl in our class who is 1/4 Native American was the only one who wasn't appalled. The more you know!

Which is, again, all the more reason to emphasize that although the Holy Spirit guides the Church and shall never abandon our pursuit for a greater understanding of divine revelation, private theologians and even the majority theological opinion can be very, very wrong (or misguided, to use a happier term with fewer negative connotations). Theology is always growing in one way or another, and our understanding of it is always enriching itself. Who knows what the future may hold? In a few hundred years, theologians may look back on us today and be shocked that we eat meat.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1331772693' post='2400865']
If I'm reading your implication right, I think my appropriate response is to point out that that's not how papal infallibility works.[/quote]

I wasn't actually referencing papal infallibility but perhaps it could go in that direction too.

[quote]As far as the schools, I meant especially schools back then. The Catholic Church WAS the school system, so they had more control and more of a vested interest in what was going on. Since there really were no lines between science and theology and politics and LIFE itself, things bled over more and were way messier. I guess my whole point of even talking about this is to further emphasize that it's important to always try to judge people in history by their own standards, and not only by our own. [/quote]

Well that's what's interesting. Rome wasn't unique in wanting this sort of control over it's subjects. We saw this amongst many Muslim groups too. However it wasn't necessarily the norm amongst all of Christendom. Now having said that, I agree that we should judge groups within the context of history. However it's difficult with the Roman Catholic Church because much of what they did was unique to that particular group.

[quote]And on the Catholic side, various theologians realizing that Native Americans actually do have souls is another point where Catholic theologians changed their minds, one that I find even more darkly hilarious than Galileo. Our moral theology/senior seminar professor told us that one day, and the one girl in our class who is 1/4 Native American was the only one who wasn't appalled. The more you know![/quote]

You're completely right that this is a more dark peice of history then that which took place during Galileo's period. In the case of Galileo I see a small amount of justification but in the case of Native Americans and other indigenous people like Aboriginees, I see zero justification. This is a primary reason why I could never be Roman Catholic and believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the standard of morality. When we're talking about the amount of native american children that were abused for simply speaking their native language, which caused them to committ suicide. I see absolutely no justification.

[quote]Which is, again, all the more reason to emphasize that although the Holy Spirit guides the Church and shall never abandon our pursuit for a greater understanding of divine revelation, private theologians and even the majority theological opinion can be very, very wrong (or misguided, to use a happier term with fewer negative connotations). Theology is always growing in one way or another, and our understanding of it is always enriching itself. Who knows what the future may hold? In a few hundred years, theologians may look back on us today and be shocked that we eat meat.
[/quote]

Well we have to see that there is a huge difference between eating meat and saying that human beings don't have souls.

[mortify]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331511810' post='2399233']
I specifically cited individuals who asserted that the Church has had a deleterious impact on scientific thought. It's not a hard claim to prove. I don't know what else to do to prove his claim wrong. I think it's pretty common knowledge that individuals like Voltaire was hostile to the Catholic Church and saw it as an obstacle to progress.

Here's an internet source:
[url="http://www.brucekelly.com/library/enlightenment.html"]http://www.brucekell...ightenment.html[/url]

[left][i]Although they saw the church-especially the Roman Catholic church-as the principal force that had enslaved the human mind in the past, most Enlightenment thinkers did not renounce religion altogether. They opted rather for a form of Deism, accepting the existence of God and of a hereafter, but rejecting the intricacies of Christian theology. Human aspirations, they believed, should not be centered on the next life, but rather on the means of improving this life. Worldly happiness was placed before religious salvation. Nothing was attacked with more intensity and ferocity than the church, with all its wealth, political power, and suppression of the free exercise of reason.[/i][/left]

If you want we can start a thread on this. And I certainly feel responsible to try to support my claim there since I made a point to criticize the Priest's claim. But I don't want to continue it here.
[/quote]

We don't need to start a new thread on this, all you have to do is provide several quotes demonstrating a general attitutude of the Church and science being opposed. Your quote above does not do this. Science is a methodology and the body of knowledge derived from that methodology. As Cmotherofpearl demonstrated, many Catholic Priests were fully absorbed in, and contributed to, what we call science.

If you are unable to do this, then perhaps you were too quick to judge Bro Guy's statement.

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1331680462' post='2400281']
I actually agree with Mr. Hasan. I don't have to go further then the Roman Catholic Churches treatment of Galileo and his scientific discoveries to prove my point.
[/quote]

I think that's a poor example because many of Galileo's contemporaries rejected his so called "discovery." I say that in quotes because a lot of the evidence Galileo proposed was simply wrong (e.g. the changing in tides being caused by the movement of the earth.) To put it into perspective, rejecting the long held notion of the sun revolving around the earth, would be like rejecting in evolution in our day. Any new idea will be met with resistance, no matter where it comes from.

What got Galileo into trouble is when he started meddling with scripture and presenting his ideas as dogma.

[4588686]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1331796178' post='2401010']

We don't need to start a new thread on this, all you have to do is provide several quotes demonstrating a general attitutude of the Church and science being opposed. Your quote above does not do this. Science is a methodology and the body of knowledge derived from that methodology. As Cmotherofpearl demonstrated, many Catholic Priests were fully absorbed in, and contributed to, what we call science.

If you are unable to do this, then perhaps you were too quick to judge Bro Guy's statement.
[/quote]

I didn't say there was a general attitude. I said the idea was entertained and promoted (though often sub rosa since they had a strange aversion to torture) by thinkers who are part of the intellectual tradition of the West.