Neil deGrasse Tyson on religion and ..

[jojoju1998]

I'm a Catholic so...

[jojoju1998]

NdGT seems like the poster child for the kind of arrogant scientism that had its heyday in the late 19th century but somehow keeps limping around in public discourse despite having been so thoroughly discredited.

Science is truly wonderful and inspiring, but it needs better advocates than the kinds of charlatans who think it's the alpha and omega of human wisdom.

The American Dichotomy between Faith and Reason is a bit... too much. But then again, the US hasn't moved past the 1920-1960s culture wars.

[jojoju1998]

NdGT seems like the poster child for the kind of arrogant scientism that had its heyday in the late 19th century but somehow keeps limping around in public discourse despite having been so thoroughly discredited.

Science is truly wonderful and inspiring, but it needs better advocates than the kinds of charlatans who think it's the alpha and omega of human wisdom.

The American Dichotomy between Faith and Reason is a bit... too much. But then again, the US hasn't moved past the 1920-1960s culture wars.

American fundamentalism really is an intellectual black hole. Its pull is so powerful that it has drained any shed of worthwhile metaphysical thinking from both Christianity's fiercest defenders and its staunchest opponents.

I mean; I like Bishop Robert Barron. I find him to be an excellent theologian when it comes to matters of faith and science.

[jojoju1998]

NdGT seems like the poster child for the kind of arrogant scientism that had its heyday in the late 19th century but somehow keeps limping around in public discourse despite having been so thoroughly discredited.

Science is truly wonderful and inspiring, but it needs better advocates than the kinds of charlatans who think it's the alpha and omega of human wisdom.

The American Dichotomy between Faith and Reason is a bit... too much. But then again, the US hasn't moved past the 1920-1960s culture wars.

American fundamentalism really is an intellectual black hole. Its pull is so powerful that it has drained any shed of worthwhile metaphysical thinking from both Christianity's fiercest defenders and its staunchest opponents.

I mean; I like Bishop Robert Barron. I find him to be an excellent theologian when it comes to matters of faith and science.

I'm not familiar with him so I'll reserve judgment. I'm talking about broader intellectual trends though.

He's the now Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Winona Rochester in Minnesota. He runs the world on fire ministry, which is a digital ministry.

[jojoju1998]

One need not be an expert in a subject to have an opinion of that particular subject.
Tyson is citing polls which in themselves are not necessarily scientific.

I am not an expert on science and religion, but I tend to agree with someone like Tyson and those like him, because he talks common sense.

Certainly, Tyson has enough knowledge to discern science from pseudoscience.

Science has facts to back it up, so when someone tries to discredit science, does that mean that such a person is ignoring accepted facts?

Anyway, I would give this video (and there are numerous others) a thumbs up.

So Neil deGrasse Tyson says you don't have to be scientifically illiterate to be religious. Cool?

And I don't know where he's getting these numbers from, but color me skeptical that <1% of "non-religion philosophers" are irreligious. If anything, it's a cop-out to separate philosophers from "religion philosophers" or theologians because both have the same fundamental objectives, even if their approaches are radically different.

“Normally I don’t go here…”

Huh?  He assumes he’s an expert on everything BESIDES Astrophysics, lol.

I think that both Tyson and Dawkins are brilliant contributors (arguably more so for Dawkins) in their respective fields. But otherwise, I wish these guys would stick to their own lane.

Would you say the same thing about religious people who try to justify their beliefs using "science".

It was a Catholic Priest named Georges LeMaitre, a A Belgian priest who developed the idea of the Big Bang as a valid explanation for the beginning of the Universe, and the Soviet Union at the time opposed the idea; because they thought it was too religiously based.

[jojoju1998]

One need not be an expert in a subject to have an opinion of that particular subject.
Tyson is citing polls which in themselves are not necessarily scientific.

I am not an expert on science and religion, but I tend to agree with someone like Tyson and those like him, because he talks common sense.

Certainly, Tyson has enough knowledge to discern science from pseudoscience.

Science has facts to back it up, so when someone tries to discredit science, does that mean that such a person is ignoring accepted facts?

Anyway, I would give this video (and there are numerous others) a thumbs up.

So Neil deGrasse Tyson says you don't have to be scientifically illiterate to be religious. Cool?

And I don't know where he's getting these numbers from, but color me skeptical that <1% of "non-religion philosophers" are irreligious. If anything, it's a cop-out to separate philosophers from "religion philosophers" or theologians because both have the same fundamental objectives, even if their approaches are radically different.

“Normally I don’t go here…”

Huh?  He assumes he’s an expert on everything BESIDES Astrophysics, lol.

I think that both Tyson and Dawkins are brilliant contributors (arguably more so for Dawkins) in their respective fields. But otherwise, I wish these guys would stick to their own lane.

Would you say the same thing about religious people who try to justify their beliefs using "science".

It was a Catholic Priest named Georges LeMaitre, a A Belgian priest who developed the idea of the Big Bang as a valid explanation for the beginning of the Universe, and the Soviet Union at the time opposed the idea; because they thought it was too religiously based.

Of course, scientific theories come from people of all religions (and also from those with no religion)
The problem is with people who use religion to trump science.

Yeah but you're making a huge dichotomy between science and faith.

The American evangelical trend doesn't help. But that's not the entirety of Christian thought. You have to go to Europe, where all the big names have worked. People like Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, Henri DeLubac, Karl Barth, have worked for years on the issues of science, modernity, and religion.


Have you heard of Robert Barron ? He's a Catholic Bishop in the US, that has lectured many times on faith and reason. He has his own Digital Media Ministry, which I think is so cool. Go watch his YouTube videos and his dialogues with prominent secularists.



Like, when you think of Christianity, who do you think of ?

[jojoju1998]

One need not be an expert in a subject to have an opinion of that particular subject.
Tyson is citing polls which in themselves are not necessarily scientific.

I am not an expert on science and religion, but I tend to agree with someone like Tyson and those like him, because he talks common sense.

Certainly, Tyson has enough knowledge to discern science from pseudoscience.

Science has facts to back it up, so when someone tries to discredit science, does that mean that such a person is ignoring accepted facts?

Anyway, I would give this video (and there are numerous others) a thumbs up.

So Neil deGrasse Tyson says you don't have to be scientifically illiterate to be religious. Cool?

And I don't know where he's getting these numbers from, but color me skeptical that <1% of "non-religion philosophers" are irreligious. If anything, it's a cop-out to separate philosophers from "religion philosophers" or theologians because both have the same fundamental objectives, even if their approaches are radically different.

“Normally I don’t go here…”

Huh?  He assumes he’s an expert on everything BESIDES Astrophysics, lol.


I think that both Tyson and Dawkins are brilliant contributors (arguably more so for Dawkins) in their respective fields. But otherwise, I wish these guys would stick to their own lane.

Would you say the same thing about religious people who try to justify their beliefs using "science".

Perhaps. It depends. But a Catholic priest was heavily involved with the formulation of the Big Bang theory. That doesn't prove God necessarily through a physical lens, but theists would point out how miniscule the chances are of all the perfect conditions for life setting in, especially since pre-Big Bang the universe was fueled by a mysterious energy that permeated space itself that was rapidly expanding in a fraction of a second -- but the universe was desolate and too cold to sustain life at this point.

Things like is there life on other planets.. did the universe have a beginning.. is the universe really infinite etc etc are mysteries that might not ever be "solved".

So you do not believe that the Universe has a beginning ?

[jojoju1998]

I've met some of the seminarians who are in the Seminary for the catholic diocese here. And other discerners.

One of them majored in Neurosciences and was in a PHD program before having the call. Another was a Civil Engineering Major. Actually two of them. Two Civil Engineering Majors. Another majored in Chinese and Humanities.


Two priests I know went to UC Davis, and majored in Psychology/Sociology, before having the call. A former priest I knew ( may he RIP ), majored in economics and worked in the agriculture business for 2 decades before entering the seminary.

They seem broadly educated to me. Does it seem to be more of a problem with Evangelical Christians ? Who go to Liberty, and Oral Roberts ?

[jojoju1998]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

If someone spends all their time complaining about BLM protestors while ignoring police brutality, or if they constantly criticize western countries for human rights violations while ignoring brutal conditions in Russia and China, can we not make reasonable inferences about their ulterior motives? Of course we can, and the principle is the same here. I won't deny anyone their right to level criticism where it's deserved. But I will reserve the right to question whether they are doing so in good faith.

So your premise here is that Atlas almost never criticizes Evangelical fundamentalism? You know that's ridiculous. Or if your beef is with a specific poster or two, then you should make that clear.

My premise is that if you look at modern discourse and conclude that "scientism" is the major (or even a major) problem in our society, that has more to do with your preconceived notions than it does with anything else.

Except no one actually said that. This particular thread just happens to be a critique of scientism, and you don't like that, so you're trying to shift the conversation to something else.

If you have substantive arguments, make them. If you find the whole topic uninteresting, don't post about it. But please save us this spineless bullsh*t. You're better than this, Dule.

You said that in the first comment you wrote in this thread. Don’t play dumb.

No I didn't. You might want to read that again.

For such a tireless advocate of dispassionate rationality, you're coming off awfully clouded by your own emotions on this particular matter.

You said that “arrogant scientism” is a problem with public discourse. My point is that it is the exact opposite of “scientism” that is the problem with public discourse around science. Can you address that argument, or will this exchange continue its devolution into useless pedantry?

I said arrogant scientism was a presence in public discourse, which it objectively is (in fact, my exact word choice was "limping around", which hardly makes it sounds like the Major Issue like you claimed I said). I am not contractually obligated to only talk about major societal problems, nor is anyone else on this forum. If you have substantive objections to critiques of scientism, it is incumbent on you to make these objections. Otherwise this is, once again, merely whataboutism and a complete waste of both of our times.

But if you want me to spoon-feed you a substantive disagreement you're unable to provide yourself, fine, here's one for you. Scientism and fundamentalism are fundamentally (no pun intended) two sides of the same coin, in that they rest on a broken conceptual foundation that implies that science and religion are competing worldviews, rather than separate domains of human thinking that exist to answer entirely separate questions. The idiots who claim the earth is 6000 years old because "muh Bible says so" old and the idiots who claim "modern science disproves God" are making the same basic mistake. If you're truly interested in rooting out religious obscurantism, then, perhaps you should be willing to recognize this mistake and call it out whenever it rears its ugly head.

I don't even know if this dichotomy is that common anymore in academia.

https://stanforddaily.com/2021/04/20/constructive-science-and-religion-dialogues-at-the-university/

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2022/06/bishop-barron-says-intersection-of-faith-science-important-part-of-new-ministry

[jojoju1998]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

Did someone here say that?

This forum has a general obsession with whining about atheists.

The discourse here surrounding people who are atheist/agnostic/skeptics has led me to browsing the forum less often. We don't need to be scapegoating as the meanies who are stumping on the religious folks doorsteps and covert to our beliefs. Much of us on this forum just want to have rational understanding of how people become religious in a scientific age that surpassed the need for spirituality.

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

If someone spends all their time complaining about BLM protestors while ignoring police brutality, or if they constantly criticize western countries for human rights violations while ignoring brutal conditions in Russia and China, can we not make reasonable inferences about their ulterior motives? Of course we can, and the principle is the same here. I won't deny anyone their right to level criticism where it's deserved. But I will reserve the right to question whether they are doing so in good faith.

So your premise here is that Atlas almost never criticizes Evangelical fundamentalism? You know that's ridiculous. Or if your beef is with a specific poster or two, then you should make that clear.

My premise is that if you look at modern discourse and conclude that "scientism" is the major (or even a major) problem in our society, that has more to do with your preconceived notions than it does with anything else.

Except no one actually said that. This particular thread just happens to be a critique of scientism, and you don't like that, so you're trying to shift the conversation to something else.

If you have substantive arguments, make them. If you find the whole topic uninteresting, don't post about it. But please save us this spineless bullsh*t. You're better than this, Dule.

You said that in the first comment you wrote in this thread. Don’t play dumb.

No I didn't. You might want to read that again.

For such a tireless advocate of dispassionate rationality, you're coming off awfully clouded by your own emotions on this particular matter.

You said that “arrogant scientism” is a problem with public discourse. My point is that it is the exact opposite of “scientism” that is the problem with public discourse around science. Can you address that argument, or will this exchange continue its devolution into useless pedantry?

My view on religion can be summed up with three words.
Nobody needs religion.

Both sides; Scientism and Fundamentalism operate off 20th century tropes regarding evolution, biblical literacy, et cetera. Et Cetera. It's uniquely American. There's nothing else like it.

Europe ( and the Rest of the world ) has moved on. ( There's a reason why I like European Philosophy more than American Philosophy). Science and Faith aren't in conflict. The majority, the vast majority of Academia in this country agree. I have not heard anything disparaging about religion from professors I know and worked with, and vice versa. In fact they encourage religious expression. The University I went to had a foot washing room for Muslim students.

This Book I will share is from a decade ago, But I think the information remains valid. https://archive.org/details/sacredsecularrel00norr_668

" Global studies which have pooled data on religion and science from 1981 to 2001, have noted that countries with greater faith in science also often have stronger religious beliefs, while less religious countries have more skepticism of the impact of science and technology.[235] The United States is noted there as distinctive because of greater faith in both God and scientific progress. Other research cites the National Science Foundation's finding that America has more favorable public attitudes towards science than Europe, Russia, and Japan despite differences in levels of religiosity in these cultures."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#Europe

By the way, Creationism is not a uniquely American thing.

"  A poll on adult Europeans revealed that 40% believed in naturalistic evolution, 21% in theistic evolution, 20% in special creation, and 19% are undecided; with the highest concentrations of young earth creationists in Switzerland (21%), Austria (20%), Germany (18%)." https://finna.fi/Record/vaari.2115147?lng=en-gb

But wait, aren't American Evangelicals/Fundamentalists ( aka Trump voters ) opposed to the critical thinking and all that stuff ?

The missing factor here is that American Evangelicals/Nationalists are less likely to go to Church.

" Christian nationalism is thought to have been an important factor in the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016—and likely drove many of his supporters to the polls in 2020. Now, new research shows Christian nationalist support of Trump isn’t tied to religious institutions or attending church on a regular basis. Instead, it’s tied to not attending church."


" Detachment from religious communities can also intensify conservative attitudes.
 
“Institutions in general can have a stabilizing effect on people’s lives and ideologies,” Stroope said. “People who want to have their views ‘checked’ might also self-sort into institutions. Furthermore, religious communities can have a stress-buffering effect, so people feel less desperate for an authoritarian figure like Trump.”


https://www.lsu.edu/research/news/2020/1109-unchurched.php

[jojoju1998]

I don't even know if this dichotomy is that common anymore in academia.

https://stanforddaily.com/2021/04/20/constructive-science-and-religion-dialogues-at-the-university/

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2022/06/bishop-barron-says-intersection-of-faith-science-important-part-of-new-ministry

Once again, I never claimed it was common. I don't think it needs to be for me to be allowed to call it out when it's directly relevant to the thread I'm posting in.

It wasn't directed at you. I was just point out that in the real world, much of Academia has moved on. It's not the same anymore as it was in the 1920s or even the 1980s. We don't live in a Christian majority country anymore. We have people from all religious backgrounds.

[jojoju1998]

I said arrogant scientism was a presence in public discourse, which it objectively is (in fact, my exact word choice was "limping around", which hardly makes it sounds like the Major Issue like you claimed I said). I am not contractually obligated to only talk about major societal problems, nor is anyone else on this forum. I try to put some degree of thought in my word choice and I'd appreciate if you stopped putting words in my mouth. If not wanting to be reduced to a strawman is pedantry, then so f**king be it, I'll be as "pedantic" as I need to be for you to acknowledge what I actually did and did not say. And again, if you have substantive objections to critiques of scientism, it is incumbent on you to make these objections. Otherwise this is, once again, merely whataboutism and a complete waste of both of our times.

But if you want me to spoon-feed you a substantive disagreement you're unable to provide yourself, fine, here's one for you. Scientism and fundamentalism are fundamentally (no pun intended) two sides of the same coin, in that they rest on a broken conceptual foundation that implies that science and religion are competing worldviews, rather than separate domains of human thinking that exist to answer entirely separate questions. The idiots who claim the earth is 6000 years old because "muh Bible says so" old and the idiots who claim "modern science disproves God" are making the same basic mistake. If you're truly interested in rooting out religious obscurantism, then, perhaps you should be willing to recognize this mistake and call it out whenever it rears its ugly head.

It's completely absurd to equate these two. Full stop. That's what I'm getting at with my posts in this thread, and I thank you for outright stating this false equivalency so I can address it without having to make inferences about your position.

It's ridiculous to assert that "science and religion exist to answer entirely different questions." Really? Entirely different? So religion doesn't seek to provide any answers whatsoever about the origins of the natural world or the human race? Myths don't try to explain natural occurrences or the relationship between humankind and the world? I understand that you approach religion from a philosophical perspective because you're more educated on religious philosophy than 99% of people, but it's an extreme and demonstrably incorrect statement to say that there's no overlap whatsoever between the questions science and religion address. It's possible that you personally see science and religion as completely bifurcated, with no conflict between them-- but that is not the way millions of religious people approach their faith, and I'm not going to ignore their worldviews in favor of an (incorrect) analysis of religion as something that is intended to be purely philosophical or metaphorical. Your statement here completely ignores how religion guides people's thinking in the real world.

What I think you mean to say is that they're not mutually exclusive-- which I can agree with, but that's not the same thing as saying they're entirely separate. In short, this is an argument so stupid that only a smart person could possibly make it.

It's a basic truth that there are areas of conflict between science and religion. And once you accept that these conflicts exist, you have to make some kind of judgement about which approach is preferable to solving those conflicts. Saying that science and faith are in any way equivalent when it comes to resolving these conflicts is a false equivalency. Evidence and deductive reasoning are not in any way comparable to faith when it comes to their validity.

Another point: I don't think there are any adherents to "scientism" (insofar as such a thing exists) who actually think that science can answer moral truths or provide us with value judgements. I've certainly never heard Tyson make such a claim-- perhaps I'm not in the right online neckbeard communities to be exposed to these arguments, but I've never thought that anyone would entertain such an idea. On the other hand, there are overwhelming numbers of religious people who would contend that religion can answer the questions that you and I would consider to be within the purview of science-- questions about the laws of nature and natural history. Many of these people do indeed post on this site.

In fact, the only reason people make the argument that "science and religion are not in conflict" is because religion has effectively ceded one of its primary goals-- that of explaining the natural world-- to science (and even then, only in the face of overwhelming evidence). This has precipitated the cowardly attempt by "progressive" religious philosophers to retroactively define their faith as something that is only metaphorical. If anything, this process has not gone far enough. There are still millions of people in this country who refuse to accept the basic reality of evolution and the age of the Earth. Until that is no longer the case, I will continue to mock the assertion that "scientism" is a problem with our society that is worthy of discussion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Creationism and Fundamentalism was not a thing in Christianity until the 19th century, with rise of Higher Biblical Criticism and all of that stuff, and then with the evolution stuff adding it's mix in. And it was mostly based in America, for many reasons.



https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#HisCre


Many Christian thinkers have thought of the Bible as more metaphorical dating back to the 400s AD. Way before any scientific revolution happened, way before Charles Darwin.  People like Origen, Augustine,

" Catholics, especially dating back to Saint Augustine around 400 AD, and even to earlier thinkers like Origen, have always recognized that at times the Bible needs to be taken metaphorically or allegorically. Augustine was particularly sensitive to this need, because for many years as a young man he was a Manichean and hence denied the authenticity and relevance of the Old Testament for salvation. When he became a Christian he knew full well the problems of Genesis and hence was eager to help his fellow believers from getting ensnared in the traps of literalism."

[jojoju1998]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Creationism and Fundamentalism was not a thing in Christianity until the 19th century, with rise of Higher Biblical Criticism and all of that stuff, and then with the evolution stuff adding it's mix in. And it was mostly based in America, for many reasons.



https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#HisCre


Many Christian thinkers have thought of the Bible as more metaphorical dating back to the 400s AD. Way before any scientific revolution happened, way before Charles Darwin.  People like Origen, Augustine,

" Catholics, especially dating back to Saint Augustine around 400 AD, and even to earlier thinkers like Origen, have always recognized that at times the Bible needs to be taken metaphorically or allegorically. Augustine was particularly sensitive to this need, because for many years as a young man he was a Manichean and hence denied the authenticity and relevance of the Old Testament for salvation. When he became a Christian he knew full well the problems of Genesis and hence was eager to help his fellow believers from getting ensnared in the traps of literalism."

Emphasizing the operative words here. Sure, there are parts of the Bible that have historically been considered metaphorical-- but to assert that Biblical scripture never attempted to provide any explanations of the natural world, and that people have always recognized the text as metaphorical, is absurd.

Catholics and much of the liturgical churches like Eastern Orthodoxy, do not solely rely on the Bible. Hence, your biggest mistake in my view, is assuming all Christians hold on to Sola Scriptura. Which I think is at the crux of this issue we're having.

America is majority protestant. Right ? And what do protestants believe ? Sola Scriptura. Bible alone contains truth. That raises a lot of issues. Especially when it comes to Science. If one is going to read the Bible literally without any philosophical underpinnings, of course, they're going to believe in Creationism. I don't myself.  I actually find Creationism to be contrary to Christian thought about the nature and meaning of god, because it reduces the essence of God to a human, basically.



Catholics on the other hand take a look at a variety of sources, including Church Tradition, natural philosophy, and science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc The Bible is not a science book. It's not supposed to be a science book. It's theology.

John, ask yourself this, if Fundamentalism, and Literalism was so common in Christianity, why did it only begin to pop up in America in the late 1800s and early 1900s ? And in Protestant circles ?

[jojoju1998]

Catholics and much of the liturgical churches like Eastern Orthodoxy, do not solely rely on the Bible. Hence, your biggest mistake in my view, is assuming all Christians hold on to Sola Scriptura. Which I think is at the crux of this issue we're having.

America is majority protestant. Right ? And what do protestants believe ? Sola Scriptura. Bible alone contains truth. That raises a lot of issues. Especially when it comes to Science. If one is going to read the Bible literally without any philosophical underpinnings, of course, they're going to believe in Creationism. I don't myself.  I actually find Creationism to be contrary to Christian thought about the nature and meaning of god, because it reduces the essence of God to a human, basically.



Catholics on the other hand take a look at a variety of sources, including Church Tradition, natural philosophy, and science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc The Bible is not a science book. It's not supposed to be a science book. It's theology.

John, ask yourself this, if Fundamentalism, and Literalism was so common in Christianity, why did it only begin to pop up in America in the late 1800s and early 1900s ? And in Protestant circles ?

This discussion isn't about Catholicism or even Christianity. It's about religion in general and the fact that creation myths seek to explain elements of the natural world. I give Catholicism a lot of credit in terms of how open it is to scientific pursuits (at least when compared to, say, modern Islam). I have also argued in the past (including on this site) that the Catholic Church was at times a force for good in Medieval Europe, not only as a patron of the arts and sciences, but also as a node of power separate from the kings that contributed massively to the emergence of egalitarian and inclusive political systems in Europe. This cannot be said of the Orthodox churches, for example.

Having said all this, the fact remains that you cannot handwave away the historical tension between Catholicism and scientific pursuits, much of which was motivated by a literal interpretation of scripture. The entire basis for the Church's persecution of Galileo was a literal interpretation that arrived at the conclusion of geocentrism. There are many other examples.

The bolded part is Pop History. There's new historical scholarship in the last decade or so that gives a far more nuanced view of what happened with Gaileo.

1. For one thing, for one thing, the Geocentrism belief was not based off the Bible. It was a given belief for thousands of years, going back to the ancient greeks and Romans. The Greek Philosopers And given, the lack of the technology at the time, well... it was natural that people were going to believe Geocentrism. Much of the scientists including the Jesuits up until the 17th century, worked off this assumption. Because they didn't have the technology. 17th century telescopes weren't that great.

2. The Heliocentrism theory was not the only alternative. Tychus Brache's theory was far more popular as a " alternative " to the geocentric model. And given, the scientific instruments at the time, it was easier to prove. The Catholic Church was leaning towards Brache's theory, including many Jesuits. Actually, there were from what I read 8 different models of how the sun and earth moved.

3. When Galieli first started off, the Catholic Church didn't care. The theory was around for several decades already, and the Church saw it as a non issue. Many of his early works were approved by the Church. They didn't see it as an issue. So what happened ? He presented it as fact. Without the advances in technology however, it could not be proved. That was the sticking point. Many of the prominent scientists at the time saw serious scientific flaws with the idea including Giovvani Battisa Riccioli, who wrote a book on Heliocentrism, and it's supposed flaws.


There was also politics, petty drama, personal name calling, innuendo, typical of 17th century Italy.


Mariano Artigas and William R. Shea, Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius (2003)

Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (1991)

Christopher Graney, Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo, (2015)

Pietro Daniel Omodeo, Copernicus in the Cultural Debates of the Renaissance: Reception, Legacy, Transformation, (2014)

4. Of course all of this was made mute when James Bradley several decades later discovered Light aberration, which proved Heliocentrism 100 percent. Thanks to the advancements in technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)#Discovery_and_first_observations

[jojoju1998]

The bolded part is Pop History. There's new historical scholarship in the last decade or so that gives a far more nuanced view of what happened with Gaileo.

1. For one thing, for one thing, the Geocentrism belief was not based off the Bible. It was a given belief for thousands of years, going back to the ancient greeks and Romans. The Greek Philosopers And given, the lack of the technology at the time, well... it was natural that people were going to believe Geocentrism. Much of the scientists including the Jesuits up until the 17th century, worked off this assumption. Because they didn't have the technology. 17th century telescopes weren't that great.

2. The Heliocentrism theory was not the only alternative. Tychus Brache's theory was far more popular as a " alternative " to the geocentric model. And given, the scientific instruments at the time, it was easier to prove. The Catholic Church was leaning towards Brache's theory, including many Jesuits. Actually, there were from what I read 8 different models of how the sun and earth moved.

3. When Galieli first started off, the Catholic Church didn't care. The theory was around for several decades already, and the Church saw it as a non issue. Many of his early works were approved by the Church. They didn't see it as an issue. So what happened ? He presented it as fact. Without the advances in technology however, it could not be proved. That was the sticking point. Many of the prominent scientists at the time saw serious scientific flaws with the idea including Giovvani Battisa Riccioli, who wrote a book on Heliocentrism, and it's supposed flaws.


There was also politics, petty drama, personal name calling, innuendo, typical of 17th century Italy.


Mariano Artigas and William R. Shea, Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius (2003)

Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (1991)

Christopher Graney, Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo, (2015)

Pietro Daniel Omodeo, Copernicus in the Cultural Debates of the Renaissance: Reception, Legacy, Transformation, (2014)

4. Of course all of this was made mute when James Bradley several decades later discovered Light aberration, which proved Heliocentrism 100 percent. Thanks to the advancements in technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)#Discovery_and_first_observations

"Pop history?" These are the Bible quotations at issue:

Chronicles 16:30: "Tremble before him, all the earth. The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved."

Psalm 93:1: "He has established the world; it shall never be moved."

Ecclesiastes 1:5: "The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hurries to the place where it rises."

Are you honestly going to tell me that the Church of Galileo's time wasn't motivated at all by a literal interpretation of these passages? That is ahistorical nonsense.

What you're saying is Ahistorical. Literally, there is new historical scholarship that I have listed. Those books ( I have read in my free time ), that shows more nuances than your black and white pop culture history.

Geocentrism was an accepted belief in Western Civilization before the rise of Christianity from the time of the Greeks. And the Catholic Church absorbed that. Plain and Simple. Yes those Bible verses solidified the belief. But this was the most common belief of how the earth and sun moved for thousands of years. Before Christianity ever came into being.


Heliocentrism was already an idea floating around before Galieo's rise to fame, but the majority of Scientists rejected it. Plain and simple. It was never a majority consensus. Because no one had the ability to prove scientifically the sun was at the center. The technology wasn't there until 100 something years later. Scientists such as Johann Goerg Locher, Christopher Clavius, opposed Heliocentrism not on the basis of those verses but because there wasn't explicit proof. None. The technology wasn't there yet to provide that evidence needed.

The growing scientific Consensus as the time was not for Geocentrism, or for Heliocentrism, it was for Tychus Brache's theory, as I HAVE SAID ALREADY. And once again, given the technology at the time, Brache's theory was more easily proven.




https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/science-against-copernicus-in-the-age-of-galileo/


By the way, Scientist Philloppe Van Lansbergen a non Catholic scientist criticized Galieo for using non scientific arguments to prove Heliocentrism.

[jojoju1998]

What you're saying is Ahistorical. Literally, there is new historical scholarship that I have listed. Those books ( I have read in my free time ), that shows more nuances than your black and white pop culture history.

Geocentrism was an accepted belief in Western Civilization before the rise of Christianity from the time of the Greeks. And the Catholic Church absorbed that. Plain and Simple. Yes those Bible verses solidified the belief. But this was the most common belief of how the earth and sun moved for thousands of years. Before Christianity ever came into being.


Heliocentrism was already an idea floating around before Galieo's rise to fame, but the majority of Scientists rejected it. Plain and simple. It was never a majority consensus. Because no one had the ability to prove scientifically the sun was at the center. The technology wasn't there until 100 something years later. Scientists such as Johann Goerg Locher, Christopher Clavius, opposed Heliocentrism not on the basis of those verses but because there wasn't explicit proof. None. The technology wasn't there yet to provide that evidence needed.

The growing scientific Consensus as the time was not for Geocentrism, or for Heliocentrism, it was for Tychus Brache's theory, as I HAVE SAID ALREADY. And once again, given the technology at the time, Brache's theory was more easily proven.




https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/science-against-copernicus-in-the-age-of-galileo/


By the way, Scientist Philloppe Van Lansbergen a non Catholic scientist criticized Galieo for using non scientific arguments to prove Heliocentrism.

Who cares whether geocentrism existed prior to the Catholic Church or not? That is completely unrelated to the question of whether church teachings have historically come into direct conflict with science.

Here is the exact wording of the reasoning why the Catholic Church began its inquisition of Galileo, taken verbatim from the time:

[Galileo's proposition is] "formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."

If you are not going to engage with basic facts, I am not going to waste my time responding to a Christian trying to retroactively justify something his church did 400 years ago. There is no point in getting bogged down in this one example. I could just as easily have cited the fact that Catholic bishops in the 21st Century have spread fearmongering falsehoods about condoms being ineffective against HIV-- a deliberate lie in direct contradiction to established medical science, done for the sole purpose of preventing what church doctrine considers a sin.

This conversation is not about specifics. It is about the general conflict between religion and science. And my only contention in my response to Antonio was that this conflict exists. Please limit all future replies to responding to that proposition. My mother also said she will take away my phone if I debate abortion.

1. My point was; the accepted scientific consensus. ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. Up until the 1700s was Geocentrism. Plain and Simple. How can an scientific proposal conflict with " faith ", if the science itself did not fully support it ? The technology was not there to prove Heliocentrism. Plain and Simple.


If Heliocentrism was such a threat, the Catholic Church should have shut it down several decades before. Instead, it was allowed to fester and grow behind the scenes.


Gaileo's mistake was that he treated the theory as fact. It wasn't yet. Most historians of science agree that Heliocentrism wasn't explicitly proven until several decades after Gailei's death.


I'm a history major. I read books. What I'm saying isn't pro christian propaganda. Literally, what you're doing is what you accuse the Fundamentalists of doing. Taking quotes out of context, and refusing to read the sources. The scientific pushback against Galiei's ideas were there. THIS IS BASIC FACTS.


ACTUAL HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP ! Someone who accuses others of being anti intellectual, but who doesn't read the new updated historical scholarship is being quite hypocritical don't you think?


2. Also, the issue of condoms is not Church Dogma. It's a tradition. Upheld by the Popes. Wrongly ? Sure. There are still a vast number of theologians, normal catholics, who disagree with this ban. Heck, Pope Francis might change the church's teachings on Humane Vitae......





I need a vodka.

[jojoju1998]

What you're saying is Ahistorical. Literally, there is new historical scholarship that I have listed. Those books ( I have read in my free time ), that shows more nuances than your black and white pop culture history.

Geocentrism was an accepted belief in Western Civilization before the rise of Christianity from the time of the Greeks. And the Catholic Church absorbed that. Plain and Simple. Yes those Bible verses solidified the belief. But this was the most common belief of how the earth and sun moved for thousands of years. Before Christianity ever came into being.


Heliocentrism was already an idea floating around before Galieo's rise to fame, but the majority of Scientists rejected it. Plain and simple. It was never a majority consensus. Because no one had the ability to prove scientifically the sun was at the center. The technology wasn't there until 100 something years later. Scientists such as Johann Goerg Locher, Christopher Clavius, opposed Heliocentrism not on the basis of those verses but because there wasn't explicit proof. None. The technology wasn't there yet to provide that evidence needed.

The growing scientific Consensus as the time was not for Geocentrism, or for Heliocentrism, it was for Tychus Brache's theory, as I HAVE SAID ALREADY. And once again, given the technology at the time, Brache's theory was more easily proven.




https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/science-against-copernicus-in-the-age-of-galileo/


By the way, Scientist Philloppe Van Lansbergen a non Catholic scientist criticized Galieo for using non scientific arguments to prove Heliocentrism.

Who cares whether geocentrism existed prior to the Catholic Church or not? That is completely unrelated to the question of whether church teachings have historically come into direct conflict with science.

Here is the exact wording of the reasoning why the Catholic Church began its inquisition of Galileo, taken verbatim from the time:

[Galileo's proposition is] "formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."

If you are not going to engage with basic facts, I am not going to waste my time responding to a Christian trying to retroactively justify something his church did 400 years ago. There is no point in getting bogged down in this one example. I could just as easily have cited the fact that Catholic bishops in the 21st Century have spread fearmongering falsehoods about condoms being ineffective against HIV-- a deliberate lie in direct contradiction to established medical science, done for the sole purpose of preventing what church doctrine considers a sin.

This conversation is not about specifics. It is about the general conflict between religion and science. And my only contention in my response to Antonio was that this conflict exists. Please limit all future replies to responding to that proposition. My mother also said she will take away my phone if I debate abortion.

Also, the " Conflict " Thesis has been rejected by most historians of science. And has been rejected for the last 70 years. Go through Academia my friend. The Conflict Thesis has been debunked by most historians ( not all of them Christian ), including Ronald Numbers, David C. Lindberg, Bernard Goldstein, and so many others.

[jojoju1998]

There's a big difference between "scientism" and "fundamentalism".
The former is (or should be) based on things like common sense, logic, facts, reason, etc.
The latter seems to be based more on an extremely literal interpretation of the Bible.
A literal interpretation is obviously easily refuted.
If anyone wants to challenge the previous statement bring it on.

I would add that science has been misused for evil purposes.

One problem that I have with religion in the US, has to do with language. Certain words are much more ambiguous and abstract than some people realize.
There are a lot, so I am not going to list all of them.

Take the word "Christian". There is no commonly agreed upon definition.

"The infinite" can't be defined.
"The infinite" can't be limited and to define something is to limit it. (although one can take exception to that statement)

Then there's the word "atheist". It can mean someone who doesn't believe in God (includes agnostics) or someone who believes that God does not exist (does not include agnostics).

I would be interested in definitions of "pantheist" and "panentheist" .
I would interested in discussions of pantheism and deism, but perhaps not in this thread since such a discussion would likely interfere with what is currently being discussed.

That's not what Scientism is.

Scientism is when science is excessively used for fields, it was never meant to be used in. The Humanities, philosophy ( things like existentialism, so on and so forth), Literature, the arts, and yes Religion. These fields are meant to answer things, that science can't answer. Things like,



In metaphysics: what is a cause?
In logic: is modus ponens a type of valid inference?
In epistemology: is knowledge “justified true belief”?
In ethics: is abortion permissible once the fetus begins to feel pain?
In aesthetics: is there a meaningful difference between Mill’s “low” and “high”
pleasures?
In philosophy of science: what role does genetic drift play in the logical structure of
evolutionary theory?
In philosophy of mathematics: what is the ontological status of mathematical objects, such as numbers?


It's a form of Logical positivism, a belief that that all genuine knowledge is either true by definition or positive—meaning a posteriori facts derived by reason and logic from sensory experience

This wipes out not just religion ( but Humanities in general ), because what's the point of philosophy, Metaphysics, the arts, if science is the answer for everything ?

People like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, are playing for a uniquely Anglo-Americ centric audience; where the humanities has been cut in the last 2 decades or so in public schools and Universities, and this affects how both Christian Fundamentalists and the " new atheists "have viewed this debates, Neil DeGrasse Tyson included.

And this isn't just a criticism from a religious point of view by the way, many atheist philosophers ( many in Europe, a growing number in America ) have criticized Scientism for basically replacing the humanities in society.

People like Mary Midgley, Hilary Putnam, Tzvetan Todorov, Paggimo Pucciluci,


Sam Harris is one of the only " popular " atheists with a PHD in Philopshy. But I won't choose him as a prime example of what an atheist thinker is. Embracing things like Race and IQ, and islamophobia.  Literally, the Southern Poverty Law Center ( a well respected think tank ) has said that the " new atheists " have driven many people in the far right. https://www.splcenter.org/20180419/mcinnes-molyneux-and-4chan-investigating-pathways-alt-right#race-realism

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/28/alt-right-online-poison-racist-bigot-sam-harris-milo-yiannopoulos-islamophobia

https://www.e-ir.info/2012/05/22/sam-harris-liberal-masquerade/

All under the guise of being pro secular, science, and anti religion.

Is this where you want to go down ? Huh ? The FAR RIGHT ? Come on. It should be noted that Adolf Hitler destested religion, and the humanities in general.

They're two sides of the same coin. Without that strong foundation in the humanities ( which is basically mandated in most European high schools ), the American ( and increasingly British ) population starts to lose..... perspective.

So you have both the new atheists, the people who promote scientism, and the Christian Fundamentalists ( Ron DeSantis ) hate and spit on the humanities.


You ever wonder why Catholic Priests in Seminary have to undergo 2 years of philosophy ?

[jojoju1998]

Oh yeah, and how Richard Dawkins has questioned Gender Theory, because it's not " scientific ", his discriminatory comments towards Women,


https://www.salon.com/2021/06/05/how-the-new-atheists-merged-with-the-far-right-a-story-of-intellectual-grift-and-abject-surrender/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/04/20/richard-dawkins-stripped-of-top-humanist-award-for-using-science-to-demean-marginalized-groups/?sh=3015d26c1224


They sound a lot like the Christian Fundamentalists who they profess to oppose, do they ? Hating on minorities, talking about race as a science, Fighting against Critical race theory,

Huh ?

[jojoju1998]

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/30/17936564/new-atheism-religion-science-god-john-gray

[jojoju1998]

That's not what Scientism is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I didn't quote your entire post because it's long, but I really appreciate the work that you put into it.

Hot Take : The New Atheists have more in common with the Christian Fundamentalists than people think.

[jojoju1998]

That's not what Scientism is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I didn't quote your entire post because it's long, but I really appreciate the work that you put into it.

Hot Take : The New Atheists have more in common with the Christian Fundamentalists than people think.

I think that is a false equivalency, although if you mean only that there is some commonality, that's another matter. I don't think that they are two sided of the same coin. I tend to think it a mistake to compare such different world views.

Both sides reject the Fullness of Philosophical thinking, that was the basis for the actual serious debates over religion and God in the last 400 years in Europe at least. Atheist existentialists such as Jean Paul Sartre. Albert Camus. Socialists like  Karl Marx. Yes him. And so many others. And the Christian’s such as Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger,  Henri De Lubac, Karl Barth, Karol Wotijya.





Richard Dawkins can’t compare with these people. He’s not serious. He retreats to science. Same goes for the Fundamentalists. They retreat to the literal words on the Bible.

This is why Bishop Barron has refused to debate any of the famous atheists. His framework is distinctly European. His training was in Europe. Anglo- American tropes don’t apply to him.

[jojoju1998]

That's not what Scientism is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I didn't quote your entire post because it's long, but I really appreciate the work that you put into it.

Hot Take : The New Atheists have more in common with the Christian Fundamentalists than people think.

Cold take: No they don't.

Both sides rely on 20th century Anglo-Americ centric tropes, while Europe and the rest of the world has moved on.

There’s no legitimate discussion about Metaphysics, Philosophy, the arts, and humanities, Scientism and Biblical fundamentalism both reject these topics.



I would much rather have discussions about faith, science, modernity, with excellent atheist philosophers such as Jurgen Habermass, Albert Camus, Frederick Niezsche, or see them debate equally excellent Christian thinkers such as Karol Wotijya, Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, Henri De Lubac,

In fact……

https://www.amazon.com/Dialectics-Secularization-Reason-Religion/dp/1586171666

I often find American conversations about religion, science, modernity, to be lacking because it has basically avoided the 150 years of the new thoughts that Europe has developed, to our detriment.