First: an old Italian proverb. "You cannot reason with a German, but you can give orders." Second: only argue with a liberal when they are in the right. The more they are in the wrong, the more they become obstinate and intractable.
I do know a whole lot on the matter and I am perfectly prepared to argue it. I am preparing a post about the origin of the concept of liberty, and now that you have challenged me, I will follow up with one on the concept and origin of science.
It sounds to me as though you have been subjected to the typical anti-Christian form of pseudo-historical education at school. I am a semi-professional, published research historian, and it took me a good twenty years to rid myself of what I had been taught, at a time when anti-Christianity was not as widespread, shameless and aggressive as it is now.
no...actually. What I learned wasn't anti-christian at all. And I know you think I was implying that early christians were all evil bigots who tried to force their belief on others. I don't even come close to thinking that.
But what we were taught was that it was really the muslims who were the first to really delve into the scientific world.
Which is even worse bullshit. The Muslims brutally conquered a number of advanced civilizations - the Roman Empire, heir to Greek and Egyptian civilization; Buddhist Central Asia, now uniformly Muslim and backward; India - and, for a while, had a spurt of cultural growth as they synthetized the learning of these various areas. Most of the people involved in this period of cultural splendour were not Muslim, but members of the conquered nations - Christians from Syria and Egypt, Indians, Persians - and as the Muslim hold on the various territories consolidated, the effect of the original cultural synthesis (which, I insist, had been brought about by one of the most brutal episodes of military conquest in history) faded away. A typical example of what happened is the work of the great doctor and philosopher Avicenna or Ibn Sina. Ibn Sina came from Central Asia and was a child prodigy who mastered the whole medical literature not only in Arabic but in Greek before he was 18. Later in his life he synthetized his learning and his own discoveries in a five-book manual called Al Qanun or The Canon. Alas, the Muslim world became convinced that this was the last word in medical knowledge and that no further effort in research and systematization was needed; so that, far from generating a great Muslim school of medicine, the genius of Ibn Sina actually had a paralyzing effect on the Muslim mind. And why is this? Because there is a presumption in Muslim culture that Muslim culture is either perfect or able to achieve perfection, and that the only duty of the Muslim is not to perfect it but to spread it - occasionally through missionary work, more often through violent conquest. Incidentally, another "Muslim golden age" took place in India between about 1490 and 1690, in similar conditions - a Muslim minority (the Mughals) conquering a non-Muslim majority by force of arms and forcing a briefly very fertile synthesis of cultures. This was what produced such things as the Taj Mahal; and it was destroyed by another bout of Muslim intransigence - under the wretched Emperor Aurangzeb - which led to a catastrophic 25-year cycle of wars that exhausted the Mughal Empire and left India at the mercy of French and English outsiders.
Galileo was and remained a devoted Catholic all his life. His only daughter became a nun. I will have more to say about it when I write the promised post, but please, don't talk of things you know nothing about; and if you want to do so, don't do it under the cowardly shelter of anonymity.
Here (http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_003_Galileo.html) is an orthodox Catholic discussion of the Galileo issue, which I think is extremely interesting for what it says even without their interpretation. That naughty Galileo, presuming to do theology--what an astounding idea, to use reason and science to challenge the dominant Aristotelian paradigm. It's a little like the historical version of Ebert's Law.
-an anonymous reader, who considers this appellation as good as any other
The site you want me to consult (as if I did not know how to research history) is not a Catholic site. It is either schismatic, or next best thing to it. Go read their poisonous attacks on the current Pope if you want to get the real sense of who these people are. I do not take any responsibility for what they say, indeed, if I had the time, I would take pleasure in teaching them some sound theology. If you want to know what the Catholic Church - you know, the real thing, the one with its headquarters on that hill in Italy - thinks of Galileo, visit their website, instead of trawling the dregs of right-wing heresy.
Fabio P.Barbieri, who is not ashamed of his name or his opinions.
It's always refreshing to know that there is both left and right wing heresy, even for the relatively indifferent (such as myself). It certainly took the Catholic Church long enough to get around to declaring Galileo okay, though. How do you reconcile your opinions about the ordination of women with what the headquarters on the hill official promulgates--is it then okay because you are right and they are mistaken and will hopefully realize their errors?
It certainly took the Catholic Church long enough to get around to declaring Galileo OK.
They did not think about making declarations all that much; they were too busy making use of his discoveries. Or did you not know that, until about 1750, the Church employed more astronomers than any other public or private body in the world?
As for reconciling my view about the ordination of women, why don't you go to the place where I stated my view, to which I posted a link several times? It is at the end of this chapter: http://www.geocities.com/vortigernstudies/fabio/book7.5.htm. The issue is roughly the same as Galileo's: church teaching is infallible in matters of faith and morals - not in matters of history.
Galileo's Catholicism does not enter into it. Do you state the Church was right to force him to recant his theories, to prohibit his books and to put him under house arrest for the rest of his life?
Galileo's Catholicism does enter into it. If nothing else, because if he had been born in Scotland, they would probably have burned him alive rather than do nothing worse than stop him publishing. Incidentally, the answer to your question is: "yes, of course the Church was wrong in allowing itself to be stampeded into taking sides in a contention between scientists; and God punished her by letting her take the wrong side."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-05-16 11:13 pm (UTC)I think I can say that science itself is a product of Catholic Christian civilization.
I don't know a whole lot on the subject but I think that may be arguable...
no subject
Date: 2005-05-17 08:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-17 10:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 09:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 11:49 pm (UTC)But what we were taught was that it was really the muslims who were the first to really delve into the scientific world.
><But I really don't want to start anything.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-19 08:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-17 08:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 08:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 04:07 pm (UTC)-an anonymous reader, who considers this appellation as good as any other
no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 07:28 pm (UTC)Fabio P.Barbieri, who is not ashamed of his name or his opinions.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 08:03 pm (UTC)-much the same anonymous reader
no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 08:46 pm (UTC)They did not think about making declarations all that much; they were too busy making use of his discoveries. Or did you not know that, until about 1750, the Church employed more astronomers than any other public or private body in the world?
As for reconciling my view about the ordination of women, why don't you go to the place where I stated my view, to which I posted a link several times? It is at the end of this chapter: http://www.geocities.com/vortigernstudies/fabio/book7.5.htm. The issue is roughly the same as Galileo's: church teaching is infallible in matters of faith and morals - not in matters of history.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 08:20 pm (UTC)A simple "yes" or "no" will do.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 08:40 pm (UTC)