The Church Galileo schism isn’t near as neat and melodramatic as most of us have be taught to believe. There are complications of egos clashing, and Galileo was no scientific saint. I wish I could add more, but I’ve never really focused on studying it, but I’ve read enough to know that it wasn’t the lofty fight over truth - it was much more political and, and …
Here’s some teasers:
Two Views of the Universe Galileo vs. the Pope By Hal Hellman - September 9, 1998;
Special to The Washington Post
Hal Hellman is the author of “Great Feuds in Science: Ten of the Liveliest Disputes Ever” (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998), from which this article is excerpted.
Aren’t you forgetting the biggest factor? You. The receiver of said information and how YOU process that information. Are you sure you are an objective perceiver?
Challenge accepted. I’m an honest one. If I had to paint a picture of who I am, cosmologically, on this specific subject of there being a God and Jesus, since I’m on the subject of aliens lately, I’d say I’m Fox Mulder except unlike him in the show I don’t encounter evidence of the supernatural everywhere. “I want to believe” in the magic but I only really believe the man likely existed and that some of the things that are written about him, I like. Beyond that I got nothing for no one, unfortunately because it means I got nothing for myself.
That’s not faith or a propensity to want to believe in crap like is listed in this thread. In fact, as someone who “wants to believe” it biases me to crap on all of it and those who spread the garbage which only serves to get in the way of any potential teleological reality I don’t actually believe in, for real, but want to find proof of. In a world where I can do whatever I’d evacuate that arc and burn it and let Pagans circle it with rituals.
The underlying philosophy of Christianity aren’t bad ones and if there’s a God of mercy that exists, I’d certainly welcome anything he was offering. I have not found him.
If I was who you think I am I’d be telling you Jesus is the son of God, a deity as apart of a trinity or something like that and you must do something specific to receive salvation. Not my bag, not since I was allowed to think for myself.
Is that fully objective? Nope. Decently objective and honest? I hope.
The Church Galileo schism isn’t near as neat and melodramatic as most of us have be taught to believe. There are complications of egos clashing, and Galileo was no scientific saint. I wish I could add more, but I’ve never really focused on studying it, but I’ve read enough to know that it wasn’t the lofty fight over truth - it was much more political and, and …
Absolutely agreed, in fact I hate famous quotes but I know my audience and they like figures, I can’t even tell you for certain that he said that stuff about logic and reason. The nuance to the Galileo story actually illustrates my other point which is religion has a place in the scientific realm. We can learn from history and take the authority away from them (all authority, over every issue, let’s be clear) on it but that doesn’t mean they can’t contribute.
The Catholic church definitely believed science was a means to understanding the word of God and that was even Galileo’s motivation. The fact that it doesn’t boil down to the simplistic crap we’re taught in school doesn’t make it a worthless case study. We did move on from geocentrism to heliocentrism is the bottom line practical point.
In fact, it helps us dwell on these concepts longer as we contemplate actual reality as opposed to the collective delusion. Root-fact bonuses and more mental masturbation, woo.
Oh yes, absolutely similar but I’d maybe change it to a form of projection. I come from these people, right? Like hardcore evangelicalism complete with people who spoke in tongues and prophesied, all the crazy stuff. You gain a pretty unique perspective when you break yourself free from that hot garbage.
So I can let you in on the “projection” secret. Permit me some generalization, this like any issue is complex but if you push a believer of this stuff on what motivations they think modern science has for reinforcing the idea of evolution or saying the flood was impossible, and it’s practically universal, that they believe the world is trying to justify a reality where their sin can exist.
To me it’s rather clear, they’re trying to justify their existence and not the other way around. You can arrive there logically pretty easily. The real wedge issues that no one talks about are their views on divinity, Jesus must be God incarnate and he must be apart of a trinity. The problem is these concepts didn’t exist as they do today until around 700AD. Trinitarism was invented to usurp a competing religion’s dualism (is that what 2 gods is?) and is never mentioned in any of the texts.
These are the issues that kept them separate from the aforementioned Deists in the 1700s, it keeps them distant from various sects of Christianity like Mormonism or Jehovah Witnesses. It keeps them in conflict with Islam, which believes all of the same exact things (including a virgin birth) except that they have a replacement holy book with their own rules.
Arguing for literal interpretations of Genesis when even most highly religious Jews don’t and the scientific evidence is about on par as a round earth, to me at least, is clear projection and insecurity.
My advice to them? Let Jesus be Jesus. If you worship him, then that should be a no-brainer. Assuming you know it all, about what you call a deity, might be hubris. Might.
Edit: Essentially what I’m saying is they need for it to be literal because they need to support their own dogmatic theology. They completely ignore that the text was to reinforce an oral religion, not a written down one and completely refuse to consider errors even though there are some pretty glaring and obvious ones (see header note:The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11) .
Thing is I’m from outside that mind-space - I fully appreciate that we create our god’s from within ourselves via our heritage, historically and genetically.
So all that stuff, for me, is identical to listening to people seriously debating whether Sherlock Holmes had a sister who did all his hard work for him, but Watson detested her, so left her out of the stories.
And what shame it was that Watson was so insecure and such a misogynist.
And how much richer the stories would have been had he given her her due credit.
And so on and so forth.
You’re doing better than I am. I don’t even understand 1/2 the stuff he’s saying. Then again, I’m not actually reading, but rather skimming through what he posts.
Your posts are long and contain connected phrases that appear to be attempts at connecting two things that to me are not connected and those come in the middle of longer flows of explanation. So, don’t be surprised when someone misunderstands you.
Try stating things succinctly, then backing them up with a few steps of logic, then see what response you get.
Some of us don’t get the same development opportunities as others and these skills are much harder to develop in your 40s. Tough life lessons. Normally I’d call this a digression but I find it wholly related to nonsense believed in youth discussed on this thread.
Not sure if this is news but if you spend half a life brainwashed, it has an impact. For me it’s spending the first half of my life chasing ghosts only to emerge to find out, nope, actually I’m just in an obsessive search for knowledge.
Never did get that degree, life happens when you get a late start. In fact, there are gaping holes in my primary education and I was in college on a GED.
Insular religious communities are harmful, here you get to see it manifested in the form of someone who hasn’t taken a single class of high school English but can still tell you how orbital mechanics works, but leave your head scratching on half the things he’s saying overall.
… However, scientists now have a growing body of evidence about some unusual animal kingdom mortuary practices. Crows seem to hold vigil over their dead. Elephants, dolphins and whales have been known to stick by their dead companions.
Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, had also been seen engaging in some mourning behaviors in the past, like returning to,dragging and perhaps even trying to resuscitate corpses. But using tools to clean the dead is something new to science.
In the 1970s, researchers described live chimpanzees performing their own dental cleanings with tools (and even some tooth extractions). But this behavior had never been seen before as a response to death. …
But guess one would have to take evolution seriously enough to have seriously learned about it.
We are on the evolutionary spectrum, why wouldn’t our forbearers, and their off spring, also be on the evolutionary spectrum?
… you likely know this: Anthropomorphism is bad. Animals are animals, and people are people; to assume that an elephant, for example, experiences joy in the same way a human does is laughably unscientific.
This has been the prevailing mode of thought in this line of scientific inquiry for most of the last century — to staunchly avoid, and even ridicule, any research project that dared to suggest that animals might be thinking or feeling in the same way that humans do. …
Now some prominent scientists are arguing that, though the impulse was well-intentioned, decades of knee-jerk avoidance of all things anthropomorphic may have mostly served to hold this field back. “It ruined the field,” biologist and author Carl Safina told Science of Us. “Not just held it back — it’s ruined the field. It prevented people from even asking those questions for about 40 years.”
The theme of Safina’s book Beyond Words: What Animals Think and Feel pairs nicely with a forthcoming title from famed primatologist Frans de Waal called Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? Both scientists make the case for something the biologist Gordon Burghardt called “critical anthropomorphism” …
All of these findings have been published within the past several weeks, and taken together they suggest that many of the traits and abilities we believe are “uniquely human” are, in fact, not so unique to us.
From my smattering of reading, there’s nothing to dispute this trend in a more expansive appreciation for the connections between us. Especially, but not limited to, mammals.
So, they weren’t using tools?
And, it wasn’t a corpse?
Besides, it’s downright pretentious to attack the title of an article, don’t you know that it’s traditional that, numbers watching editors puts the titles on articles they publish. So please attack an article on the merits of the article not on an editorial decision outside the writer’s control.
I asked what was there in the article that you found dishonest, or disingenuous.