On Sun, 12 Dec 1999 10:54:52 -0800, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>>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?
>SJ>This is a priceless example of question-begging, `heads atheism wins,
>>tails Christianity loses' atheist thinking!
>CC>What has this to do with *atheism*?
Chris is an atheist. Therefore his thinking in the above example was
"atheist thinking".
>SJ>>If the Church burned many scientists for their scientific opinions, it
>>proves that Christianity is opposed to science.
>CC>This is well documented. It hardly needs the burnings of scientists to prove
>it.
It is *not* "well documented" at all, "that Christianity is opposed to
science". This was the thesis of two 19th century books: John William
Draper's "History of the Conflict between Religion and Science" and
Andrew Dickson White's "A History of the Warfare of Science with
Theology in Christendom", but AFAIK no modern historian believes that
any more:
"Two books in particular added to the 'conflict thesis'. J W Draper...who
became a New York science professor, published History of the Conflict
Between Religion and Science in 1875. He set out to portray history as a
'narrative of the conflict of two contending powers', adding 'no one has
hitherto treated the subject from this point of view'...he second book was
the 1895 A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in
Christendom by A.D. White, first President of Cornell
University...Admitting his debt to Draper, White's own work is more
temperate but still fails to come to terms with the thinking of earlier ages, It
fails...to understand the thinking of those studied, and it suffers from a
triumphalist tendency to assess all ideas with the hindsight presumption that
they are ' good' only if they correspond with present ideas. As a tool to
achieve particular ends the 'conflict thesis' was effective, but as history it is
unacceptable and has come under increasing criticism from modern
historians. Claude Welch's chapter in a recent book begins with 'The
Warfare Myth' and is heavily critical of Draper and White. Professional
historians of science today simply do not think in these terms." (Marston P.
& Forster R., "Reason, Science and Faith", 1999, pp309-310)
>SJ>>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!
>CC>No, it does not.
>
>This is yet *another* of your apparently unending stream of
>misrepresentations of views any views you oppose.
As with Susan's "Why lie?" post, my first point is "why assume it is a
misrepresentation" without waiting to hear my side of the story?
My second point is to outline the steps in my reasoning which led to the
above conclusion:
1. in response to Susan's claim that: "There was also the problem that you
[ie. scientists] could be burned at the stake [ie. by the Christian church] for
considering an alternative theory";
2. I pointed out that: "only *two* scientists were ever burnt at the stake by
the Church...and both were executed not for their scientific opinions, but
their religious opinions";
3. to which Chris asked "I wonder why *more* were not burned. Could it
be that they dared not express their opinions for fear of what would
happen?"
4. I interpreted Chris's reply to indicate an underlying `damned if they do
and damned if they don't' attitude towards the Christian church. I took him
to be saying that because the Church only executed two scientists, and
those not for their scientific views, that did not mean that the Church was
not opposed to science but rather that the Church intimidated those
scientists who weren't executed by the fear of what would happen to them
if they did. Therefore I wrote: "if the Church burned only *two* scientist,
and then not for their scientific opinions, it shows [to Chris's] that
Christianity is even *more* opposed to science"
Therefore, until Chris clarifies what he meant by his statements above, I
stand by what I wrote as fairly representing what Chris wrote (or at least as
being a reasonable interpretation of same).
>CC>If, as you implicitly
>suggest in another post, you "have no desire, nor need, to misrepresent"
>your opponents' views, then *why* do you do it so habitually, even after
>*many* specific examples of it have been pointed out?
Chris seems to think that if he says something often enough it becomes
true! The fact is that Chris has never shown even *one* example where I
have intentionally misrepresented his, or any one else's, views. That Chris
*claims* I misrepresent his views does not mean that I did.
It would be better if Chris just further clarified his views and debated them
rather than blustering on about misrepresentation, like a politician trying to
score cheap political points.
Actually I am quite happy for Chris to keep making ad hominem
comments, because it tells me that he is running out of arguments!
CC>What it shows is that the intended implication of the fact that only two
>were burned may not mean what you think or intend it to mean.
It is always possible that I have honestly misunderstood something that
Chris has written. The relevant part of Webster's Dictionary's definition of
"misrepresent" is: "1 : to give a false or misleading representation of
usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair <misrepresented the facts>"
(http://www.m-w.com/cgibin/dictionary). Therefore it is technically
possible to misrepresent someone *unintentionally*. In such cases, all Chris
needs to do is clarify what he meant and if it was just a misunderstanding it
should be resolved.
But I take it that when Chris says I "misrepresent" what he says, he means
it is "with an intent to deceive or be unfair". But how Chris could possibly
know this is beyond me. In each instance he would need to show that:
1) I was representing the facts different from what they objectively were
(i.e. it is not a matter of our different metaphysical worldviews interpreting
the facts differently);
2) I was not *unintentionally* misrepresenting his position, (i.e. due to lack
of clarity in his explanation or my lack of understanding of it); and then,
3) I was *intentionally* intending in my own mind to represent falsely what
Chris had just written, and send my intentional misrepresentation to a
mailing list on which Chris himself is a member!
If Chris wants to make his claims that I am *intentionally* misrepresenting
what he says, then he would need to work through those steps from 1) to
3) proving each one of them to be true.
Until he does that, his claims of *intentional* "misrepresentation" are just
that: *claims*.
Of course if Chris was willing to do that, natural justice would mandate
that Chris himself could not be the `prosecution', `sole witness', `judge',
`jury' and `executioner' in such a `trial'!
until he works through steps 1) to 3) to prove his case, I am going keep
posting this challenge to him. In Australia we have a saying: "Put up, or
shut up"! I challenge Chris to either prove I am intentionally
misrepresenting him, or stop making the allegation.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------