Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Galileo, Socrates, etc. Invoking religion

  1. #1 Galileo, Socrates, etc. Invoking religion 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Do you think the events that led to the persecution of these figures was caused by personal disputes, but the antagonists simply used religion to boost their personal claims?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    No. I actually think that they fully believed in their religion.


    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    No, no, sorry I didn't explain well enough. I wasn't questioning whether or not they believed in their religion, but whether or not they were motivated by it. But instead used it to motivate others to join their personal vendetta.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    No, no, sorry I didn't explain well enough. I wasn't questioning whether or not they believed in their religion, but whether or not they were motivated by it. But instead used it to motivate others to join their personal vendetta.
    It depends on what you mean and how deep you dig. If you only go so far as what they believed then verzen is probably correct. However, you can often dig beneath the reasons that people tell themselve and thus choose to believe to find psychological motivations which they would not admit to.

    In both these case, it seems obvious to me that these people were motivated by a fear of change and uncertainty. They didn't like their pat answers to questions being challenged and they found the ideas of Galileo or Socrates disturbing.

    I think it is kind of a mental agoraphobia. One becomes used to thinking of the world in a certain way and it becomes like a house that is well ordered and under your control, then someone comes along and opens a window or a door to show that there is a much bigger world out there than they previously imagined.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i think you are clouding the issue and assuming that the religious leaders of the r.c.c. actually understood and taught the Bible correctly.

    we know for a fact that they did not thus your generalization makes it impossible to come up with a proper answer. we also know for a fact that many unscrupolous men ran the r.c.c. who cared only for luxury and wealth not the word of God thus any 'interpretation' they may have had was influenced wrongly distorting their conclusions and warping their judgment.

    to answer the question, it was neither. they were looking to hold onto the monopoly they had and to keep the parishoner in the pew without questioning their decisions.

    in other words they used fear and persecution to keep the people in line.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i think you are clouding the issue and assuming that the religious leaders of the r.c.c. actually understood and taught the Bible correctly.
    Yeah, you never make assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    we know for a fact that they did not
    Fact=Your opinion, then?

    Because the way you understand the bible must be correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    thus your generalization makes it impossible to come up with a proper answer.
    "A bad workman blames his tools"

    It is not impossible to come up with a proper answer; it is you who is incapable.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    we also know for a fact that many unscrupolous men ran the r.c.c. who cared only for luxury and wealth not the word of God
    I could say the same about most modern religious leaders. Anyone who deliberately seeks to gain power, on the behalf of a god or not, could be said to care only for luxury and wealth.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    thus any 'interpretation' they may have had was influenced wrongly distorting their conclusions and warping their judgment.
    How can any interpretation of the bible be wrong? I generally avoid accusing anyone of having incorrect beliefs, since they are just that - beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    in other words they used fear and persecution to keep the people in line.
    This from the same person whose only arguement for believing in god was that you go to hell otherwise.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Fact=Your opinion, then?
    read The History of Christianity 2 vols. by Kenneth Scott Latourette and
    The Story of Christianity, 2 vols, by Justo Gonzalez

    It is not impossible to come up with a proper answer; it is you who is incapable.
    innuendos are ignored as well

    I could say the same about most modern religious leaders. Anyone who deliberately seeks to gain power, on the behalf of a god or not, could be said to care only for luxury and wealth.
    you wouldn't get much of an argument from me but keep in mind that God does allow christians to have wealth. so you cannot lump them all into the same basket.
    but be discerning.

    How can any interpretation of the bible be wrong? I generally avoid accusing anyone of having incorrect beliefs, since they are just that - beliefs.
    interpretation is not truth. usually it is used as a hiding place to avoid following what God has said.

    we arenot said 'we will find the inerpretation and it shall set you free' no, we are told, ye shall know the truth and it shall set you free' big difference.

    This from the same person whose only arguement for believing in god was that you go to hell otherwise
    i never made that argument, try to keep your posters straight. i said you have a choice of destinations you can choose to repent and follow Jesus aand go to heaven or you can choose to reject same and go to hell. if you choose sin, you must pay the price.

    you also forget the verse-- we love God because He first loved us. nothing about hell there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    How can any interpretation of the bible be wrong? I generally avoid accusing anyone of having incorrect beliefs, since they are just that - beliefs.
    interpretation is not truth. usually it is used as a hiding place to avoid following what God has said.

    we arenot said 'we will find the inerpretation and it shall set you free' no, we are told, ye shall know the truth and it shall set you free' big difference.
    Right. Your belief is based on your interpretation of the bible, though. I could argue that you are wrong because of your interpretation just as you argue these other people were wrong by their interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    This from the same person whose only arguement for believing in god was that you go to hell otherwise
    i never made that argument, try to keep your posters straight. i said you have a choice of destinations you can choose to repent and follow Jesus aand go to heaven or you can choose to reject same and go to hell. if you choose sin, you must pay the price.
    You have just presented the same arguement to deny making said arguement. Hypocrit :wink:

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you also forget the verse-- we love God because He first loved us. nothing about hell there.
    Excellent, in that case I have nothing to worry about.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I think it is kind of a mental agoraphobia. One becomes used to thinking of the world in a certain way and it becomes like a house that is well ordered and under your control, then someone comes along and opens a window or a door to show that there is a much bigger world out there than they previously imagined.
    Spot on. When I was taught quantum entanglement at uni it deeply disturbed me.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    However much he is unable to see it I think it is abundantly clear that achaeologist's response in this thread is exactly like those who condemned Socrates and Galileo. When shown the windows to a larger world, he and they simply say that it is a lie and he tells us that we aren't doing the science properly just as they told them that they were doing the science wrong. According to him, we are supposed look in the Bible first to get the right answers and then reject the result of any experiment and observation that disagrees with that!
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    I love your hypocrisy mitch, for was it not you that just recently attacked me for getting science wrong?
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I love your hypocrisy mitch, for was it not you that just recently attacked me for getting science wrong?
    Attacked you??? Do you generally perceive opportunities to learn as attacks? Do you require that everyone believe that you know everything already?

    I am a physics teacher. Telling people when they have the science is wrong, is part of my profession.

    What make you think that what I just said in any way contradicts this? Did I say that one should never say that someone else has the science wrong? No. There are correct and incorrect criteria for saying when people have the science wrong. That you do not understand this makes it all the more clear why you would have the science wrong when I pointed this out to you.

    ...sigh... Do you think that Galileo had his science wrong, when these theologians refused to believe what he showed them in a telescope because it contradicted their dogmas? Do you think that theological dogmas and idiot interpretations of scripture should be the proper criteria for saying that someone has the science wrong?

    For all that I could applaud you for stepping out of the ridgid battleground roles that people have locked themselves into, in order to come to archaeologist's defense, I think you have chosen an extremely shaky pretext for doing so. I reccommend much more solid ground before launching your retaliatory revenge strike against me for some perceived "attack".
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Excellent, in that case I have nothing to worry about.
    you would be wrong for the other verses also include; 'if you love me keep my commandments' & 'why do ye call me lord lord and not do the things i say'

    you do not get to do what you want nor believe what you want and stillget to heaven. sorry, it means you must drop evolution for creation, drop sin for the christian life as Christ wants it done and so on.

    However much he is unable to see it I think it is abundantly clear that achaeologist's response in this thread is exactly like those who condemned Socrates and Galileo. When shown the windows to a larger world, he and they simply say that it is a lie and he tells us that we aren't doing the science properly just as they told them that they were doing the science wrong. According to him, we are supposed look in the Bible first to get the right answers and then reject the result of any experiment and observation that disagrees with that!
    MM i sso funny. he thinks he gets to speak for me. he is worng as he confuses good science with bad (sorry the 'all science is good science' thought is wrong).

    socrates was a philospher not a scientist and galileo did what he was supposed to--investigate. he did not present a lie like evolutionists do but was talking about what was really there and observable without conjecture.

    there is a big difference between galileo's work and the evolutionists'. being a christian does not mean yu can't do science, it means you stop listening to non-believers and listen to God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Galileo, Socrates, etc. Invoking religion 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    Do you think the events that led to the persecution of these figures was caused by personal disputes, but the antagonists simply used religion to boost their personal claims?
    Are you referring to Galileo as an antagonist?
    Galileo was Italy's Greatest scientist and he pursued the truth to see for himself.
    That is why he created his own telescopes.
    He was a mathematics professor, but prefered to see for himself what the truth was. Of course history has proven him to be right in support of Copernicuses views.

    I do not know anything about Socrates philosophy except tha he was frequently quoted as one.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Socrates was put to death because of his ethical and moral theories, he didn't believe in democracy and supported the Spartan system of power gained through deeds. The Athenians who were in power at the time of course didn't like that so much. Although, it should be noted that the only records of Socrates we have are from his students, who were obviously biased in his favor.

    Plato's version of why he was put to death was quite interesting. He wrote that when Socrates asked the Oracle of Delphi if any man was wiser than he, the Oracle responded that none were wiser. Initially, Socrates didn't believe the Oracle so he set out to find men who were wiser than him by interviewing people who were traditionally viewed as wise. So, he went and had a bunch of dialogues with poets, historians, and politicians. Then Socrates concludes that these people who know a lot, in fact know nothing at all because of how sure they are of their knowledge. Thus, he concludes that he really is the wisest man in the world because he knew that he in fact knew nothing at all. In the process though he made a lot of important men look like fools, so they took revenge. It's a nice little story, but we have to take what Plato wrote with a grain of salt, I'm sure the vast majority of what is written about Socrates is fiction.

    I think you're confusing him with Aristotle, who was condemned by the Athenians for defying the gods.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    I suppose, mitch, that hubris must be a requirement for your profession. For it is indeed impossible for you to get anything wrong.

    However, I did not defend Archaeologist. I simply pointed out that you seem to adjust your ideas to suit yourself while dancing around your hypocrisy, or attempting (and failing) at rationalizing it. You seem more like the ultimate troll than a physics teacher.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Excellent, in that case I have nothing to worry about.
    you would be wrong for the other verses also include; 'if you love me keep my commandments' & 'why do ye call me lord lord and not do the things i say'

    you do not get to do what you want nor believe what you want and stillget to heaven. sorry, it means you must drop evolution for creation, drop sin for the christian life as Christ wants it done and so on.
    As an atheist, I see no reason to do this...

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    there is a big difference between galileo's work and the evolutionists'. being a christian does not mean yu can't do science, it means you stop listening to non-believers and listen to God.
    If a christian scientist finds undeniable proof that there is no god, what do they do?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    As an atheist, I see no reason to do this...
    your choice, you have been told.

    If a christian scientist finds undeniable proof that there is no god, what do they do?
    stop listening to the secular world. problem for you is that there is no undeniable proof that there is no God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Hypothetical scenario.

    What would you do? Would you destroy the evidence and continue to believe? Or would you give up your faith?

    C'mon, be honest...
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I suppose, mitch, that hubris must be a requirement for your profession. For it is indeed impossible for you to get anything wrong.
    Obviously you haven't done any teaching because nothing could be further from the truth. No it is in teaching that your kind of pretending to know everything will not last very long. No you see acknowledging when I have made a mistake is something I do all the time, but obviously as a teacher I can only do that when I have actually made a mistake, otherwise I could not teach anything. It is the experience of my job to quickly determine whether I have made a mistake and to correct it if I have.


    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    However, I did not defend Archaeologist. I simply pointed out that you seem to adjust your ideas to suit yourself while dancing around your hypocrisy, or attempting (and failing) at rationalizing it.
    Your ad-hominem rhetoric here proves nothing and will not distract us from the basic questions which I am going to repeat as long as you keep up this nonsensical stream of rhetoric. So are you going to answer the questions and confront the issue or are you going think of ever more ridiculous accusations - anything to avoid actually answering these questions and seeing that you are wrong.

    1. Do you think that theological dogmas and idiot interpretations of scripture should be the proper criteria for saying that someone has the science wrong?
    2. Do you think that Galileo had his science wrong, when these theologians refused to believe what he showed them in a telescope because it contradicted their dogmas?
    3. Did I say that one should never say that someone else has the science wrong?
    4. What makes you think that what I just said in any way contradicts the need to tell people when they have the science wrong?
    5. Do you require that everyone believe that you know everything already?
    6. Do you generally perceive opportunities to learn as attacks?
    7. Is it possible for you to recognize when you have made a mistake?


    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    You seem more like the ultimate troll than a physics teacher.
    I am not your physics teacher. You would have to pay me, for me to do that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    _________________
    “There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
    But what is aggressive stupidity but obstinately defending your mistakes?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    not told to me but i will answer some any ways:

    1. Do you think that theological dogmas and idiot interpretations of scripture should be the proper criteria for saying that someone has the science wrong?
    unless it is true or truth, dogmas and interpretations are not the proper criteria for saying someone has science wrong. BUT if the science disagrees with the Bible, i.e. origins, then the science is wrong for so many reasons.

    2. Do you think that Galileo had his science wrong, when these theologians refused to believe what he showed them in a telescope because it contradicted their dogmas?
    first, one has to determine if the 'theologians' of the day have the true teaching of the Bible. if they don't then they are in error. second, one has to make sure that what science is saying is NOT contradicting the Bible. i.e. the Bible contains the phrase 'the four corners of the earth' but that is not teaching that the earth is flat, in fat it i susing a phrase that allpeople would recognize and understand to mean all the earth. we use that phrase even today to discuss one's own travels.

    3. Did I say that one should never say that someone else has the science wrong?
    sounds like you do not want religious people to do it but just evolutionary scientists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i think you are clouding the issue and assuming that the religious leaders of the r.c.c. actually understood and taught the Bible correctly.

    we know for a fact that they did not thus your generalization makes it impossible to come up with a proper answer. we also know for a fact that many unscrupolous men ran the r.c.c. who cared only for luxury and wealth not the word of God thus any 'interpretation' they may have had was influenced wrongly distorting their conclusions and warping their judgment.

    to answer the question, it was neither. they were looking to hold onto the monopoly they had and to keep the parishoner in the pew without questioning their decisions.

    in other words they used fear and persecution to keep the people in line.
    Bible? I'm talking about religion in general (hence Socrates)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    3. Did I say that one should never say that someone else has the science wrong?
    sounds like you do not want religious people to do it but just evolutionary scientists.
    False dichotomy. 40% of scientists believe a personal God guided evolution. For more...http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    1. Do you think that theological dogmas and idiot interpretations of scripture should be the proper criteria for saying that someone has the science wrong?
    unless it is true or truth, dogmas and interpretations are not the proper criteria for saying someone has science wrong. BUT if the science disagrees with the Bible, i.e. origins, then the science is wrong for so many reasons.
    But if it disagrees with any other holy book, that's fine?

    You need to find a way of differentiating you opinion and fact. Unless you can find a way of categorically proving that the unlikely story told in the bible really happened?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    2. Do you think that Galileo had his science wrong, when these theologians refused to believe what he showed them in a telescope because it contradicted their dogmas?
    first, one has to determine if the 'theologians' of the day have the true teaching of the Bible.
    They read the bible, and followed it's teachings. Was this wrong? Should they have made up bits where it was lacking and ignored places where it was wrong, like most modern christians, including you, do?

    One should determine if one's own interpretation of the bible is correct before one judges others for theirs.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if they don't then they are in error.
    Same applies to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    second, one has to make sure that what science is saying is NOT contradicting the Bible. i.e. the Bible contains the phrase 'the four corners of the earth' but that is not teaching that the earth is flat, in fat it i susing a phrase that allpeople would recognize and understand to mean all the earth. we use that phrase even today to discuss one's own travels.
    Ah, how suitably vague. They didn't know how the world was shaped when they wrote the bible, so they used a vague comment to cover themselves either way.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    3. Did I say that one should never say that someone else has the science wrong?
    sounds like you do not want religious people to do it but just evolutionary scientists.
    By all means point out flaws in the science.

    Making sweepingly inaccurate statements which are not backed up with evidence is not the prefered approach to scientific debate, however.

    Nor is constantly blaming conjecture.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •