On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:49:23 -0800, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>>SB>There was also the problem that you could be burned at the stake for
>>>considering an alternative theory.
>SJ>The fact is, as Koestler points out, that only *two* scientists were ever
>>burnt at the stake by the Church, and only one (Bruno) was by the Catholic
>>Church, and both were executed not for their scientific opinions, but
>>their religious opinions:
>CC>Hmmm. I wonder why *more* were not burned. Could it be that they dared not
>express their opinions for fear of what would happen? Why did Kepler (or was
>it someone else?) have to publish his work as mere speculation rather than
>science? Perhaps he feared reprisals (at the very least) from ye olde
>defenders of the faith?
This is a priceless example of question-begging, `heads atheism wins, tails
Christianity loses' atheist thinking!
If the Church burned many scientists for their scientific opinions, it proves
that Christianity is opposed to science.
But if the Church burned only *two* scientist, and then not for their
scientific opinions, it shows that Christianity is even *more* opposed to
science!
Here is another quote from Koestler on Galileo:
"The personality of Galileo, as it emerges from works of popular science,
has even less relation to historic fact than Canon Koppernigk's. In his
particular case, however, this is not caused by a benevolent indifference
towards the individual as distinct from his achievement, but by more
partisan motives. In works with a theological bias, he appears as the nigger
in the woodpile; in rationalist mythography, as the Maid of Orleans of
Science, the St George who slew the dragon of the Inquisition. It is,
therefore, hardly surprising that the fame of this outstanding genius rests
mostly on discoveries he never made, and on feats he never performed.
Contrary to statements in even recent outlines of science, Galileo did not
invent the telescope; nor the microscope; nor the thermometer; nor the
pendulum clock. He did not discover the law of inertia; nor the
parallelogram of forces or motions; nor the sun spots. He made no
contribution to theoretical astronomy; he did not throw down weights from
the leaning tower of Pisa, and did not prove the truth of the Copernican
system. He was not tortured by the Inquisition, did not languish in its
dungeons, did not say 'eppur si muove'; and he was not a martyr of
science." (Koestler A., "The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing
Vision of the Universe", 1972, p358)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The purpose of science is not to find "facts" or discover "truth," but rather
to formulate and use theories in order to solve problems and ultimately to
organize, unify, and explain all the material phenomena of the universe.
Scientists attempt to avoid the use of "fact, "proof," and "truth," because
these words could easily be interpreted to connote absolutes. Nothing in
science is deemed absolute. Science deals only with theories or relative
"truth,"-a temporary correctness so far as can be ascertained by the rational
mind at the present time." (Stansfield W.D., "The Science of Evolution",
[1977], Macmillan: New York NY, 1983, Eighth Printing, p7)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------