| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"The Black Monk" |
| Date: |
02 May 2005 08:03:01 AM |
| Object: |
How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Today is the official release date for my new book, How the Catholic
Church Built Western Civilization. From the role of the monks (they did
much more than just copy manuscripts) to art and architecture, from the
university to Western law, from science to charitable work, from
international law to economics, the book delves into just how indebted
we are as a civilization to the Catholic Church, whether we realize it
or not.
By far the book's longest chapter is "The Church and Science." We
have all heard a great deal about the Church's alleged hostility
toward science. What most people fail to realize is that historians of
science have spent the past half-century drastically revising this
conventional wisdom, arguing that the Church's role in the
development of Western science was far more salutary than previously
thought. I am speaking not about Catholic apologists but about serious
and important scholars of the history of science such as J.L. Heilbron,
A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, and Thomas Goldstein.
It is all very well to point out that important scientists, like Louis
Pasteur, have been Catholic. More revealing is how many priests have
distinguished themselves in the sciences. It turns out, for instance,
that the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely
falling body was Fr. Giambattista Riccioli. The man who has been called
the father of Egyptology was Fr. Athanasius Kircher (also called
"master of a hundred arts" for the breadth of his knowledge). Fr. Roger
Boscovich, who has been described as "the greatest genius that
Yugoslavia ever produced," has often been called the father of modern
atomic theory.
In the sciences it was the Jesuits in particular who distinguished
themselves; some 35 craters on the moon, in fact, are named after
Jesuit scientists and mathematicians.
By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits
had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs,
barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields
as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some
cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter's surface, the
Andromeda nebula and Saturn's rings. They theorized about the
circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical
possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the
wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere,
symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers,
introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics - all were
typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat,
Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among
their most prized correspondents [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004,
p. 189].
Seismology, the study of earthquakes, has been so dominated by Jesuits
that it has become known as "the Jesuit science." It was a Jesuit, Fr.
J.B. Macelwane, who wrote Introduction to Theoretical Seismology, the
first seismology textbook in America, in 1936. To this day, the
American Geophysical Union, which Fr. Macelwane once headed, gives an
annual medal named after this brilliant priest to a promising young
geophysicist.
The Jesuits were also the first to introduce Western science into such
far-off places as China and India. In seventeenth-century China in
particular, Jesuits introduced a substantial body of scientific
knowledge and a vast array of mental tools for understanding the
physical universe, including the Euclidean geometry that made planetary
motion comprehensible. Jesuits made important contributions to the
scientific knowledge and infrastructure of other less developed nations
not only in Asia but also in Africa and Central and South America.
Beginning in the nineteenth century, these continents saw the opening
of Jesuit observatories that studied such fields as astronomy,
geomagnetism, meteorology, seismology, and solar physics. Such
observatories provided these places with accurate time keeping, weather
forecasts (particularly important in the cases of hurricanes and
typhoons), earthquake risk assessments, and cartography. In Central and
South America the Jesuits worked primarily in meteorology and
seismology, essentially laying the foundations of those disciplines
there. The scientific development of these countries, ranging from
Ecuador to Lebanon to the Philippines, is indebted to Jesuit efforts.
The Galileo case is often cited as evidence of Catholic hostility
toward science, and How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization
accordingly takes a closer look at the Galileo matter. For now, just
one little-known fact: Catholic cathedrals in Bologna, Florence, Paris,
and Rome were constructed to function as solar observatories. No more
precise instruments for observing the sun's apparent motion could be
found anywhere in the world. When Johannes Kepler posited that
planetary orbits were elliptical rather than circular, Catholic
astronomer Giovanni Cassini verified Kepler's position through
observations he made in the Basilica of San Petronio in the heart of
the Papal States. Cassini, incidentally, was a student of Fr. Riccioli
and Fr. Francesco Grimaldi, the great astronomer who also discovered
the diffraction of light, and even gave the phenomenon its name.
I've tried to fill the book with little-known facts like these.
To say that the Church played a positive role in the development of
science has now become absolutely mainstream, even if this new
consensus has not yet managed to trickle down to the general public. In
fact, Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly
career, has developed a compelling argument that in fact it was
important aspects of the Christian worldview that accounted for why it
was in the West that science enjoyed the success it did as a
self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian cultures did not possess the
same philosophical tools, and in fact were burdened by conceptual
frameworks that hindered the development of science. Jaki extends this
thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian,
Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki explains, science
suffered a "stillbirth." My book gives ample attention to Jaki's
work.
Economic thought is another area in which more and more scholars have
begun to acknowledge the previously overlooked role of Catholic
thinkers. Joseph Schumpeter, one of the great economists of the
twentieth century, paid tribute to the overlooked contributions of the
late Scholastics - mainly sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Spanish
theologians - in his magisterial History of Economic Analysis (1954).
"[I]t is they," he wrote, "who come nearer than does any other group to
having been the 'founders' of scientific economics." In devoting
scholarly attention to this unfortunately neglected chapter in the
history of economic thought, Schumpeter would be joined by other
accomplished scholars over the course of the twentieth century,
including Professors Raymond de Roover, Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson, and
Alejandro Chafuen.
The Church also played an indispensable role in another essential
development in Western civilization: the creation of the university.
The university was an utterly new phenomenon in European history.
Nothing like it had existed in ancient Greece or Rome. The institution
that we recognize today, with its faculties, courses of study,
examinations, and degrees, as well as the familiar distinction between
undergraduate and graduate study, come to us directly from the medieval
world. And it is no surprise that the Church should have done so much
to foster the nascent university system, since the Church, according to
historian Lowrie Daly, "was the only institution in Europe that showed
consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge."
The popes and other churchmen ranked the universities among the great
jewels of Christian civilization. It was typical to hear the University
of Paris described as the "new Athens" - a designation that calls to
mind the ambitions of the great Alcuin from the Carolingian period of
several centuries earlier, who sought through his own educational
efforts to establish a new Athens in the kingdom of the Franks. Pope
Innocent IV (1243-54) described the universities as "rivers of
science which water and make fertile the soil of the universal Church,"
and Pope Alexander IV (1254-61) called them "lanterns shining in the
house of God." And the popes deserved no small share of the credit for
the growth and success of the university system. "Thanks to the
repeated intervention of the papacy," writes historian Henri
Daniel-Rops, "higher education was enabled to extend its boundaries;
the Church, in fact, was the matrix that produced the university, the
nest whence it took flight."
As a matter of fact, among the most important medieval contributions to
modern science was the essentially free inquiry of the university
system, where scholars could debate and discuss propositions, and in
which the utility of human reason was taken for granted. Contrary to
the grossly inaccurate picture of the Middle Ages that passes for
common knowledge today, medieval intellectual life made indispensable
contributions to Western civilization. In The Beginnings of Western
Science (1992), David Lindberg writes:
[I]t must be emphatically stated that within this educational system
the medieval master had a great deal of freedom. The stereotype of the
Middle Ages pictures the professor as spineless and subservient, a
slavish follower of Aristotle and the Church fathers (exactly how one
could be a slavish follower of both, the stereotype does not explain),
fearful of departing one iota from the demands of authority. There were
broad theological limits, of course, but within those limits the
medieval master had remarkable freedom of thought and expression; there
was almost no doctrine, philosophical or theological, that was not
submitted to minute scrutiny and criticism by scholars in the medieval
university.
"[S]cholars of the later Middle Ages," concludes Lindberg, "created a
broad intellectual tradition, in the absence of which subsequent
progress in natural philosophy would have been inconceivable."
Historian of science Edward Grant concurs with this judgment:
What made it possible for Western civilization to develop science and
the social sciences in a way that no other civilization had ever done
before? The answer, I am convinced, lies in a pervasive and deep-seated
spirit of inquiry that was a natural consequence of the emphasis on
reason that began in the Middle Ages. With the exception of revealed
truths, reason was enthroned in medieval universities as the ultimate
arbiter for most intellectual arguments and controversies. It was quite
natural for scholars immersed in a university environment to employ
reason to probe into subject areas that had not been explored before,
as well as to discuss possibilities that had not previously been
seriously entertained.
The creation of the university, the commitment to reason and rational
argument, and the overall spirit of inquiry that characterized medieval
intellectual life amounted to "a gift from the Latin Middle Ages to the
modern world...though it is a gift that may never be acknowledged.
Perhaps it will always retain the status it has had for the past four
centuries as the best-kept secret of Western civilization."
---------------
BM
.
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
02 May 2005 06:45:17 PM |
|
|
"The Black Monk" <cherniymonakh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115038981.644275.268850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Today is the official release date for my new book, How the Catholic
Church Built Western Civilization. From the role of the monks (they did
much more than just copy manuscripts) to art and architecture, from the
university to Western law, from science to charitable work, from
international law to economics, the book delves into just how indebted
we are as a civilization to the Catholic Church, whether we realize it
or not.
By far the book's longest chapter is "The Church and Science." We
have all heard a great deal about the Church's alleged hostility
toward science. What most people fail to realize is that historians of
science have spent the past half-century drastically revising this
conventional wisdom, arguing that the Church's role in the
development of Western science was far more salutary than previously
thought. I am speaking not about Catholic apologists but about serious
and important scholars of the history of science such as J.L. Heilbron,
A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, and Thomas Goldstein.
It is all very well to point out that important scientists, like Louis
Pasteur, have been Catholic. More revealing is how many priests have
distinguished themselves in the sciences. It turns out, for instance,
that the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely
falling body was Fr. Giambattista Riccioli. The man who has been called
the father of Egyptology was Fr. Athanasius Kircher (also called
"master of a hundred arts" for the breadth of his knowledge). Fr. Roger
Boscovich, who has been described as "the greatest genius that
Yugoslavia ever produced," has often been called the father of modern
atomic theory.
In the sciences it was the Jesuits in particular who distinguished
themselves; some 35 craters on the moon, in fact, are named after
Jesuit scientists and mathematicians.
By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits
had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs,
barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields
as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some
cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter's surface, the
Andromeda nebula and Saturn's rings. They theorized about the
circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical
possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the
wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere,
symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers,
introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics - all were
typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat,
Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among
their most prized correspondents [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004,
p. 189].
Seismology, the study of earthquakes, has been so dominated by Jesuits
that it has become known as "the Jesuit science." It was a Jesuit, Fr.
J.B. Macelwane, who wrote Introduction to Theoretical Seismology, the
first seismology textbook in America, in 1936. To this day, the
American Geophysical Union, which Fr. Macelwane once headed, gives an
annual medal named after this brilliant priest to a promising young
geophysicist.
The Jesuits were also the first to introduce Western science into such
far-off places as China and India. In seventeenth-century China in
particular, Jesuits introduced a substantial body of scientific
knowledge and a vast array of mental tools for understanding the
physical universe, including the Euclidean geometry that made planetary
motion comprehensible. Jesuits made important contributions to the
scientific knowledge and infrastructure of other less developed nations
not only in Asia but also in Africa and Central and South America.
Beginning in the nineteenth century, these continents saw the opening
of Jesuit observatories that studied such fields as astronomy,
geomagnetism, meteorology, seismology, and solar physics. Such
observatories provided these places with accurate time keeping, weather
forecasts (particularly important in the cases of hurricanes and
typhoons), earthquake risk assessments, and cartography. In Central and
South America the Jesuits worked primarily in meteorology and
seismology, essentially laying the foundations of those disciplines
there. The scientific development of these countries, ranging from
Ecuador to Lebanon to the Philippines, is indebted to Jesuit efforts.
The Galileo case is often cited as evidence of Catholic hostility
toward science, and How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization
accordingly takes a closer look at the Galileo matter. For now, just
one little-known fact: Catholic cathedrals in Bologna, Florence, Paris,
and Rome were constructed to function as solar observatories. No more
precise instruments for observing the sun's apparent motion could be
found anywhere in the world. When Johannes Kepler posited that
planetary orbits were elliptical rather than circular, Catholic
astronomer Giovanni Cassini verified Kepler's position through
observations he made in the Basilica of San Petronio in the heart of
the Papal States. Cassini, incidentally, was a student of Fr. Riccioli
and Fr. Francesco Grimaldi, the great astronomer who also discovered
the diffraction of light, and even gave the phenomenon its name.
I've tried to fill the book with little-known facts like these.
To say that the Church played a positive role in the development of
science has now become absolutely mainstream, even if this new
consensus has not yet managed to trickle down to the general public. In
fact, Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly
career, has developed a compelling argument that in fact it was
important aspects of the Christian worldview that accounted for why it
was in the West that science enjoyed the success it did as a
self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian cultures did not possess the
same philosophical tools, and in fact were burdened by conceptual
frameworks that hindered the development of science. Jaki extends this
thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian,
Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki explains, science
suffered a "stillbirth." My book gives ample attention to Jaki's
work.
Economic thought is another area in which more and more scholars have
begun to acknowledge the previously overlooked role of Catholic
thinkers. Joseph Schumpeter, one of the great economists of the
twentieth century, paid tribute to the overlooked contributions of the
late Scholastics - mainly sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Spanish
theologians - in his magisterial History of Economic Analysis (1954).
"[I]t is they," he wrote, "who come nearer than does any other group to
having been the 'founders' of scientific economics." In devoting
scholarly attention to this unfortunately neglected chapter in the
history of economic thought, Schumpeter would be joined by other
accomplished scholars over the course of the twentieth century,
including Professors Raymond de Roover, Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson, and
Alejandro Chafuen.
The Church also played an indispensable role in another essential
development in Western civilization: the creation of the university.
The university was an utterly new phenomenon in European history.
Nothing like it had existed in ancient Greece or Rome. The institution
that we recognize today, with its faculties, courses of study,
examinations, and degrees, as well as the familiar distinction between
undergraduate and graduate study, come to us directly from the medieval
world. And it is no surprise that the Church should have done so much
to foster the nascent university system, since the Church, according to
historian Lowrie Daly, "was the only institution in Europe that showed
consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge."
The popes and other churchmen ranked the universities among the great
jewels of Christian civilization. It was typical to hear the University
of Paris described as the "new Athens" - a designation that calls to
mind the ambitions of the great Alcuin from the Carolingian period of
several centuries earlier, who sought through his own educational
efforts to establish a new Athens in the kingdom of the Franks. Pope
Innocent IV (1243-54) described the universities as "rivers of
science which water and make fertile the soil of the universal Church,"
and Pope Alexander IV (1254-61) called them "lanterns shining in the
house of God." And the popes deserved no small share of the credit for
the growth and success of the university system. "Thanks to the
repeated intervention of the papacy," writes historian Henri
Daniel-Rops, "higher education was enabled to extend its boundaries;
the Church, in fact, was the matrix that produced the university, the
nest whence it took flight."
As a matter of fact, among the most important medieval contributions to
modern science was the essentially free inquiry of the university
system, where scholars could debate and discuss propositions, and in
which the utility of human reason was taken for granted. Contrary to
the grossly inaccurate picture of the Middle Ages that passes for
common knowledge today, medieval intellectual life made indispensable
contributions to Western civilization. In The Beginnings of Western
Science (1992), David Lindberg writes:
[I]t must be emphatically stated that within this educational system
the medieval master had a great deal of freedom. The stereotype of the
Middle Ages pictures the professor as spineless and subservient, a
slavish follower of Aristotle and the Church fathers (exactly how one
could be a slavish follower of both, the stereotype does not explain),
fearful of departing one iota from the demands of authority. There were
broad theological limits, of course, but within those limits the
medieval master had remarkable freedom of thought and expression; there
was almost no doctrine, philosophical or theological, that was not
submitted to minute scrutiny and criticism by scholars in the medieval
university.
"[S]cholars of the later Middle Ages," concludes Lindberg, "created a
broad intellectual tradition, in the absence of which subsequent
progress in natural philosophy would have been inconceivable."
Historian of science Edward Grant concurs with this judgment:
What made it possible for Western civilization to develop science and
the social sciences in a way that no other civilization had ever done
before? The answer, I am convinced, lies in a pervasive and deep-seated
spirit of inquiry that was a natural consequence of the emphasis on
reason that began in the Middle Ages. With the exception of revealed
truths, reason was enthroned in medieval universities as the ultimate
arbiter for most intellectual arguments and controversies. It was quite
natural for scholars immersed in a university environment to employ
reason to probe into subject areas that had not been explored before,
as well as to discuss possibilities that had not previously been
seriously entertained.
The creation of the university, the commitment to reason and rational
argument, and the overall spirit of inquiry that characterized medieval
intellectual life amounted to "a gift from the Latin Middle Ages to the
modern world...though it is a gift that may never be acknowledged.
Perhaps it will always retain the status it has had for the past four
centuries as the best-kept secret of Western civilization."
---------------
BM
I think you have the cart before the horse..... all these theists you
mention have acheived some scientific advances *despite* their theism... not
because of it.
Using your logic if my motor mechanic is a catholic i should send a thank
you note to the pope - somehow it was the wonderful catholic church that is
responsible for that fine tune up !
I seem to recall from " A brief history of time" Steven Hawking had a
meeting with the pope (the last dead one) and he had no apparent problem
with the big bang *but* he was not to investigate the cause "because that
was the area of god" (im paraphrasing). If the rcc is so science orientated
why wud your (ex)boss say this ? Wouldnt your pro science stance insist on a
scientific investigation of *anything* ?? - which would lead to a stem cell
debate.
Steve
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
02 May 2005 07:42:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:45:17 +1000, "Steve" <kmbs57@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think you have the cart before the horse..... all these theists you
mention have acheived some scientific advances *despite* their theism... not
because of it.
Most atheists tend to look at people as individuals. We don't say
"so-and-so did some brilliant research because he followed a
particular philosophy/ideology/religion". We simply say "he did
brilliant work".
When a scientist practises science, he puts his ideology aside. Even
people like Polkinghorne. Although they often link the two when
they're talking to a church audience.
When somebody says their church is the fount of modern science, it is
reasonable to point out instances where their church obstructed it,
and that the names cited weren't the stars in their field they are
claimed to be.
After all, they brought it up, we didn't.
Especially when the original was historical revisionism.
Using your logic if my motor mechanic is a catholic i should send a thank
you note to the pope - somehow it was the wonderful catholic church that is
responsible for that fine tune up !
It's the same "logic" they use to equate atheism with communism. Why
else would one of them have replied "Lysenko" to "Gallileo" as an
example of the church obstructing science?
It's very revealing. When somebody is a member of an ideology they
imagine it drives what they do. So anything a Christian does in
motivated by Christianity - but when they do bad things "they were't
really Christian".
I seem to recall from " A brief history of time" Steven Hawking had a
meeting with the pope (the last dead one) and he had no apparent problem
with the big bang *but* he was not to investigate the cause "because that
was the area of god" (im paraphrasing). If the rcc is so science orientated
why wud your (ex)boss say this ? Wouldnt your pro science stance insist on a
scientific investigation of *anything* ?? - which would lead to a stem cell
debate.
Actually today's Vatican has a pretty strong astronomy group, plus a
few other fields. But when they are doing science they have to step
aside from their religion, and their results are due to science not
religion.
One of the unsung heroes, Sydney Fox, gave a presentation to the pope
about the formation of protocells.
Steve
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
02 May 2005 09:21:42 AM |
|
|
"The Black Monk" <cherniymonakh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115038981.644275.268850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
To say that the Church played a positive role in the >development of
science has now become absolutely >mainstream"
This is absolutely false and you know it. Only a few desperate defenders of
the faith try (as you do) to cook the data to make it look like the church
was not as destructive to human progress as we know it was. You have no
references to support your claim. There are no references.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Black Monk" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
02 May 2005 11:35:59 AM |
|
|
Milan wrote:
"The Black Monk" <cherniymonakh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115038981.644275.268850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
To say that the Church played a positive role in the >development
of
science has now become absolutely >mainstream"
This is absolutely false and you know it. Only a few desperate
defenders of
the faith try (as you do) to cook the data to make it look like the
church
was not as destructive to human progress as we know it was. You have
no
references to support your claim. There are no references.
regards
Milan
The article contained numerous references. The responses thus far,
including yours, contain not a single one. But then yours is the
irrational belief here.
regards,
BM
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
02 May 2005 01:36:44 PM |
|
|
The Black Monk wrote:
Milan wrote:
"The Black Monk" <cherniymonakh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115038981.644275.268850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
To say that the Church played a positive role in the >development
of
science has now become absolutely >mainstream"
This is absolutely false and you know it. Only a few desperate
defenders of
the faith try (as you do) to cook the data to make it look like the
church
was not as destructive to human progress as we know it was. You have
no
references to support your claim. There are no references.
regards
Milan
The article contained numerous references. The responses thus far,
including yours, contain not a single one. But then yours is the
irrational belief here.
regards,
BM
Gallileo.
--
James B, master of the tri-pronged scrotal mount
aa #944
"All that belongs to human understanding, in this
deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical,
or at least cautious; and not to admit of any
hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which
is supported by no appearance of probability."
-David Hume
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
02 May 2005 03:41:25 PM |
|
|
James <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in news:117csps8lil08e2@corp.supernews.com:
The Black Monk wrote:
Milan wrote:
"The Black Monk" <cherniymonakh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115038981.644275.268850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
To say that the Church played a positive role in the >development
of
science has now become absolutely >mainstream"
This is absolutely false and you know it. Only a few desperate
defenders of
the faith try (as you do) to cook the data to make it look like the
church
was not as destructive to human progress as we know it was. You have
no
references to support your claim. There are no references.
regards
Milan
The article contained numerous references. The responses thus far,
including yours, contain not a single one. But then yours is the
irrational belief here.
regards,
BM
Gallileo.
What about him?
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
02 May 2005 04:01:44 PM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary wrote:
James <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in news:117csps8lil08e2@corp.supernews.com:
Gallileo.
What about him?
An counter-example to the claim "...the Church played a positive role in
the development of science..."
I thought it was pretty self-explanatory.
--
James B, master of the tri-pronged scrotal mount
aa #944
"All that belongs to human understanding, in this
deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical,
or at least cautious; and not to admit of any
hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which
is supported by no appearance of probability."
-David Hume
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
02 May 2005 04:28:24 PM |
|
|
James <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:117d59t1amnalbc@corp.supernews.com:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
James <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:117csps8lil08e2@corp.supernews.com:
Gallileo.
What about him?
An counter-example to the claim "...the Church played a positive role
in the development of science..."
Aside from a single counter example not even coming close to disproving the
overall claim (and only a 'tard would think it did), The Church did
absolutely nothing to supress Galileo's work on the heliocentric model of
the solar system. Which, BTW, was actually the work of Copernicus, who,
BTW, was a priest, and nearly a bishop at least twice, and who only
published his work, on his deathbed, at the request of two friends, one a
bishop, the other a cardinel. Galileo didn't do much actual work on the
theory, he merely provided some empircal support.
Galileo had more support among clerical scholars, in point of fact, than
among secular scientists. There are still existing letters between various
Church officials debating the best way to handle the matter if it turned
out Copernicus was correct - which Galileo, BTW, simply did not have the
tools to prove. Until Newton developed calculus, the heliocentric model was
an interesting theory, but utterly unprovable - and the ptolemaic model
provded significantly more accurate predictions of planetary movements,
because Copernicus (and Galileo) assumed perfectly circular orbits, which
was incorrect.
In the end, however, Galileo was not arrested for saying the earth revolved
around the sun, he was arrested for saying he'd proven the bible wrong.
That was the first time he stood trial. You *were* aware he stood trial
twice, weren't you? Weren't you? He was given a slap on the wrist, and told
"don't do that again," and that was it. He promised to teach that _our
understanding_ of the bible must be wrong. He promised on solemn oath. He
lied his ***** off, of course, and withing weeks, he was teaching he'd proven
the bible wrong again. And even then, nobody really cared, until he pissed
off, again, some powerful enemy. (He had a habit of doing that. He liked to
set up public demonstrations of his new work, and invite those who claimed
he was wrong to them, so he could humiliate them as publicly as possible.
Galileo was a complete and utter *****. He'd have been right at home on
Usenet.) The second arrest and trial was, again, over teaching theology,
not science, and was far more about pissing off the wrong politician than
anything else. The excuse was publishing his work on the heliocentric
model, and putting in writing that he'd proven the bible was wrong.
And even then, after he was placed under house arrest (in the house of a
noble friend, where he life out his life in comfort and privilige), at no
point was his work unavailable to the general public. One sentence was
changed, to correct his erroneous theology, but the science was not. And
the unabridged version, word for word, was generally available to
scientists on top of that.
Considering the Church *paid* *for* Copernicus' original work on the
matter, and, IIRC, paid for at least part of Galileo's work, I'd say your
"counterexample" is actually a damned good example of how fucking stupid
- and wrong - you are.
I thought
Not that I can see.
it was pretty self-explanatory.
Indeed, it was. It explained that you accept whatever hateful lies you are
spoon fed without question - isn't that what atheists hate about theists? -
and perpetuate it. The original trial records of both Galileo's trials
still exist, as do fairly extensive other documents to provide context.
BTW, he also never uttered "And yet, it moves." There is no trace of that
line being attributed to him until at least a century after his death, and
that was part of a deliberate propaganda campaign by protestants in
Germany, in among a number of other blatant, and *bad*, lies.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
02 May 2005 05:33:42 PM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary wrote:
James <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:117d59t1amnalbc@corp.supernews.com:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
James <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:117csps8lil08e2@corp.supernews.com:
Gallileo.
What about him?
An counter-example to the claim "...the Church played a positive role
in the development of science..."
Aside from a single counter example not even coming close to disproving the
overall claim (and only a 'tard would think it did)
Hey, there's a great start to a post. Not only do you get your panties
in a bunch and fall all over yourself trying to explain away a historic
fact, you call me a retard. It might bother me if you didn't proceed to
fumble about for arguments like a virgin with his first hooker.
Galileo was persecuted and silenced for speaking science when it went
against religion. It doesn't disprove the overall claim, but it's a
fucking sterling counter-example.
The Church did
absolutely nothing to supress Galileo's work on the heliocentric model of
the solar system. Which, BTW, was actually the work of Copernicus, who,
BTW, was a priest, and nearly a bishop at least twice, and who only
published his work, on his deathbed, at the request of two friends, one a
bishop, the other a cardinel. Galileo didn't do much actual work on the
theory, he merely provided some empircal support.
That's not even re-writing history, that's taking a great big ***** on a
great scientist. Copernicus waited until his deathbed because he knew
your church would punish him for it. A suspicion proven correct when
his student didn't do the same.
Galileo spent his life working on the theories of Copernicus, perfected
the telescope, and did massive amounts of work in physics. He
practically invented astronomy. How dare you ***** on him by attributing
his work to others!
Galileo had more support among clerical scholars, in point of fact, than
among secular scientists.
No one has or would claim that everyone in the church is an idiot. Just
a great many of them, including you.
There are still existing letters between various
Church officials debating the best way to handle the matter if it turned
out Copernicus was correct - which Galileo, BTW, simply did not have the
tools to prove.
He provided much of the evidence that led to the Tychonian model being
overturned. "Proving" a theory wrong rarely centers on one person or
one competing theory.
Until Newton developed calculus, the heliocentric model was
an interesting theory, but utterly unprovable - and the ptolemaic model
provded significantly more accurate predictions of planetary movements,
because Copernicus (and Galileo) assumed perfectly circular orbits, which
was incorrect.
What are you talking about? The Ptolemaic model had been largely
abandoned by the time of Galileo. What kind of idiot source do you get
your information from?
Johannes Kepler demonstrated that orbits were elliptical, not the
Ptolemaic model, as you imply. And since you apparently missed this
distinction, the planets orbit the Sun, not vice-versa. That is only
one of many, many reasons why the Copernican theory was of more value
than the Ptolemaic.
Theories evolve, and the Copernican spin was the one of the first steps
towards our present knowledge.
In the end, however, Galileo was not arrested for saying the earth revolved
around the sun, he was arrested for saying he'd proven the bible wrong.
The two are synonymous, asshead. He DID prove the bible wrong, or at
least the leading interpretation of it, which to the Inquisition was the
exact same fricking thing.
That was the first time he stood trial. You *were* aware he stood trial
twice, weren't you? Weren't you?
Considering how much blatantly wrong information you've given so far, I
wouldn't start fumbling for insults too.
He was given a slap on the wrist, and told
"don't do that again," and that was it. He promised to teach that _our
understanding_ of the bible must be wrong. He promised on solemn oath. He
lied his ***** off, of course, and withing weeks, he was teaching he'd proven
the bible wrong again.
Look, I don't have time to rebut every single piece of ***** you're
giving. The Sun would burn out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo
Educate yourself. You desperately need it.
And even then, nobody really cared, until he pissed
off, again, some powerful enemy. (He had a habit of doing that. He liked to
set up public demonstrations of his new work, and invite those who claimed
he was wrong to them, so he could humiliate them as publicly as possible.
Galileo was a complete and utter *****. He'd have been right at home on
Usenet.) The second arrest and trial was, again, over teaching theology,
not science, and was far more about pissing off the wrong politician than
anything else. The excuse was publishing his work on the heliocentric
model, and putting in writing that he'd proven the bible was wrong.
I should ask, are you actively trying to lie or or are you just
spectacularly ignorant? Read the Wikipedia entry.
And even then, after he was placed under house arrest (in the house of a
noble friend, where he life out his life in comfort and privilige), at no
point was his work unavailable to the general public. One sentence was
changed, to correct his erroneous theology, but the science was not. And
the unabridged version, word for word, was generally available to
scientists on top of that.
Considering the Church *paid* *for* Copernicus' original work on the
matter, and, IIRC, paid for at least part of Galileo's work, I'd say your
"counterexample" is actually a damned good example of how fucking stupid
- and wrong - you are.
Yeah, and they merely put him under house arrest and denied access to
medical treatment. Nothing big, eh? Ignore my earlier question, since
it's pretty fucking obvious you're far past spectacularly ignorant. I'm
sure the spectacularly ignorant are insulted that I've lumped you in
with them.
I thought
Not that I can see.
You must deal with people proving you stupid and wrong every day, so
that really doesn't surprise me.
it was pretty self-explanatory.
Indeed, it was. It explained that you accept whatever hateful lies you are
spoon fed without question - isn't that what atheists hate about theists? -
and perpetuate it. The original trial records of both Galileo's trials
still exist, as do fairly extensive other documents to provide context.
He was tried (and convicted) for arguing with the Bible. "...he was
arrested for saying he'd proven the bible wrong," you wrote. You can't
even manage to be consistently wrong properly.
Congratulations on writing a massive post. I'm sure you put a lot of
effort into it. The fact that it was devoid of truth, worth, or
intelligence shouldn't diminish your achievement. Truly, you're a
credit to your faith.
BTW, he also never uttered "And yet, it moves." There is no trace of that
line being attributed to him until at least a century after his death, and
that was part of a deliberate propaganda campaign by protestants in
Germany, in among a number of other blatant, and *bad*, lies.
I'll wager that you have lots of interesting rewritten histories to
share with us. Start checking that Wikipedia entry; you'll still be a
moron afterwards, but at least you'll have had the choice.
--
James B, master of the tri-pronged scrotal mount
aa #944
"All that belongs to human understanding, in this
deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical,
or at least cautious; and not to admit of any
hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which
is supported by no appearance of probability."
-David Hume
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
02 May 2005 06:04:17 PM |
|
|
James <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:117dam6d80op863@corp.supernews.com:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
James <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:117d59t1amnalbc@corp.supernews.com:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
James <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:117csps8lil08e2@corp.supernews.com:
Gallileo.
What about him?
An counter-example to the claim "...the Church played a positive role
in the development of science..."
Aside from a single counter example not even coming close to
disproving the overall claim (and only a 'tard would think it did)
Hey, there's a great start to a post.
What do you expect when your entire response consists of a logical error
based on an outright lie? There isn't much there to respond to.
Not only do you get your
panties in a bunch and fall all over yourself trying to explain away a
historic fact, you call me a retard.
You *are* a retard.
It might bother me if you didn't
proceed to fumble about for arguments like a virgin with his first
hooker.
And yet, Galileo was not arrested for teaching science, he was arrested for
teaching theology.
Galileo was persecuted and silenced for speaking science when it went
against religion. It doesn't disprove the overall claim, but it's a
fucking sterling counter-example.
It's also complete and utter *****. The original trial records still
exist, 'tard-boy. The heliocentric model was never at issue. Galileo was
arrested, specifically, for teaching the bible was wrong. At no point was
his book unavailable to the general public (other than the fact that most
couldn't afford to buy books at all, of course). Masturbate as furiously as
you want over the facts, they're still the facts.
The Church did
absolutely nothing to supress Galileo's work on the heliocentric
model of the solar system. Which, BTW, was actually the work of
Copernicus, who, BTW, was a priest, and nearly a bishop at least
twice, and who only published his work, on his deathbed, at the
request of two friends, one a bishop, the other a cardinel. Galileo
didn't do much actual work on the theory, he merely provided some
empircal support.
That's not even re-writing history, that's taking a great big ***** on
a great scientist.
It's historical fact, well supported by the original trial records.
Copernicus waited until his deathbed because he
knew your church would punish him for it. A suspicion proven correct
when his student didn't do the same.
The letters to and from Copernicus still exist. He didn't want to publish
because he wasn't finished. His theory was *wrong*, and he knew it, because
it did not accurately predict planetary movements. He published part of it
twelve years before his death, and it was well recieved, in the Church and
outside it. The letters from Cardinal Schonberg and Bishop Giese of Culm,
urging him to publish the rest before it was lost, still exist. He also
dedicated it to the Pope, which required explicit, written permission of
the Pope, legally.
In other words, you're simply full of *****. As expected.
(BTW, it was protestants who objected to the helicentric model during
Copernicus' lifetime, not the Catholic Church.)
Galileo spent his life working on the theories of Copernicus,
Actually, he spent far more of his life working on gravity and
hydrodynamics, but don't let a little fact get in the way of your
masturbation.
perfected the telescope, and did massive amounts of work in physics.
He practically invented astronomy. How dare you ***** on him by
attributing his work to others!
Galileo didn't contribute anything substantial to the heliocentric model.
He made observations that supported it, but he still couldn't make it work
better than the ptolemaic system for predicting planetary movements.
Galileo had more support among clerical scholars, in point of fact,
than among secular scientists.
No one has or would claim that everyone in the church is an idiot.
Just a great many of them, including you.
I'm not a Catholic. I'm not a Christian. I'm not a theist. You are a
retard.
There are still existing letters between various
Church officials debating the best way to handle the matter if it
turned out Copernicus was correct - which Galileo, BTW, simply did
not have the tools to prove.
He provided much of the evidence that led to the Tychonian model being
overturned. "Proving" a theory wrong rarely centers on one person or
one competing theory.
Which is a completely different thing from proving Copernicus right, but
you knew that. That's why you tried to change the subject. Because you know
you're full of *****. So you're a retard *and* a liar.
Until Newton developed calculus, the heliocentric model was
an interesting theory, but utterly unprovable - and the ptolemaic
model provded significantly more accurate predictions of planetary
movements, because Copernicus (and Galileo) assumed perfectly
circular orbits, which was incorrect.
What are you talking about?
Which word don't you understand?
The Ptolemaic model had been largely
abandoned by the time of Galileo. What kind of idiot source do you
get your information from?
Historical sources. Many of them. What kind of bubble gum wrapper are you
making ***** up from?
Johannes Kepler demonstrated that orbits were elliptical, not the
Ptolemaic model, as you imply.
Only a retard could possibly think I'd said that.
And since you apparently missed this
distinction, the planets orbit the Sun, not vice-versa. That is only
one of many, many reasons why the Copernican theory was of more value
than the Ptolemaic.
Except for predicting planetary movements, of course, for which it was of
considerably less value.
Theories evolve, and the Copernican spin was the one of the first
steps towards our present knowledge.
Yes. And the Catholic Church paid for the research that developed it, and
promoted it. They just didn't like Galileo claiming the bible was wrong.
In the end, however, Galileo was not arrested for saying the earth
revolved around the sun, he was arrested for saying he'd proven the
bible wrong.
The two are synonymous, asshead.
You *are* a retard.
He DID prove the bible wrong, or at
least the leading interpretation of it,
They are not the same thing, retard.
which to the Inquisition was
the exact same fricking thing.
Then why did the trial court make a distinction between the two, and tell
Galileo, *in* *writing*, that he could say the current interpretation of
the bible was wrong, but not that the bible was wrong? It's in the fucking
trial records, retard, along with Galileo's lies that he would teach it the
acceptable way.
But you won't answer that, of course, because you *can't*.
That was the first time he stood trial. You *were* aware he stood
trial twice, weren't you? Weren't you?
Considering how much blatantly wrong information you've given so far,
I wouldn't start fumbling for insults too.
You didn't answer the question. And you won't. Ever. Will you?
He was given a slap on the wrist, and told
"don't do that again," and that was it. He promised to teach that
_our understanding_ of the bible must be wrong. He promised on solemn
oath. He lied his ***** off, of course, and withing weeks, he was
teaching he'd proven the bible wrong again.
Look, I don't have time to rebut every single piece of ***** you're
giving. The Sun would burn out.
In other words, you admit I'm right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo
Educate yourself. You desperately need it.
I prefer histories written by people who read the original records.
Were you aware that a number of people were explicitly permitted to say
that the Church did not condemn the heliocentric model in any way,
including Augustus De Morgan, von Gebler, and Riceloll? We're talking 1616
on this, BTW, and earlier.
And even then, nobody really cared, until he pissed
off, again, some powerful enemy. (He had a habit of doing that. He
liked to set up public demonstrations of his new work, and invite
those who claimed he was wrong to them, so he could humiliate them as
publicly as possible. Galileo was a complete and utter *****. He'd
have been right at home on Usenet.) The second arrest and trial was,
again, over teaching theology, not science, and was far more about
pissing off the wrong politician than anything else. The excuse was
publishing his work on the heliocentric model, and putting in writing
that he'd proven the bible was wrong.
I should ask, are you actively trying to lie or or are you just
spectacularly ignorant? Read the Wikipedia entry.
Why bother? I've read histories written by people who based their work on
the oroginal trial records and correspondance.
And even then, after he was placed under house arrest (in the house
of a noble friend, where he life out his life in comfort and
privilige), at no point was his work unavailable to the general
public. One sentence was changed, to correct his erroneous theology,
but the science was not. And the unabridged version, word for word,
was generally available to scientists on top of that.
Considering the Church *paid* *for* Copernicus' original work on the
matter, and, IIRC, paid for at least part of Galileo's work, I'd say
your "counterexample" is actually a damned good example of how
fucking stupid - and wrong - you are.
Yeah, and they merely put him under house arrest and denied access to
medical treatment.
What medical treatment? Cite your sources. What medical condition, and what
treatment was available, and what evidence is there that it was denied?
Nothing big, eh? Ignore my earlier question,
What question is that? The one where you ask to ***** some more?
since it's pretty fucking obvious you're far past spectacularly
ignorant. I'm sure the spectacularly ignorant are insulted that I've
lumped you in with them.
I'm sure you're a retard and a liar. You've admitted both.
I thought
Not that I can see.
You must deal with people proving you stupid and wrong every day, so
that really doesn't surprise me.
I know you are, but what am I?
it was pretty self-explanatory.
Indeed, it was. It explained that you accept whatever hateful lies
you are spoon fed without question - isn't that what atheists hate
about theists? - and perpetuate it. The original trial records of
both Galileo's trials still exist, as do fairly extensive other
documents to provide context.
He was tried (and convicted) for arguing with the Bible.
Liar. He was tried and convicted, twice, for saying the bible was wrong
(after promising he would use more politically correct terminology the
first time, and lying).
"...he was
arrested for saying he'd proven the bible wrong," you wrote. You
can't even manage to be consistently wrong properly.
You can't even manage to swallow completely between the blowjobs you give.
Now you've got semen stains all over your favorite shirt.
Congratulations on writing a massive post. I'm sure you put a lot of
effort into it. The fact that it was devoid of truth, worth, or
intelligence shouldn't diminish your achievement. Truly, you're a
credit to your faith.
Thank you for admitting I'm right. (I'm not a theist, BTW. Merely someone
who is interested in the truth. The Church has many things to answer for.
Galileo isn't one of the. Only retards think he is.)
BTW, he also never uttered "And yet, it moves." There is no trace of
that line being attributed to him until at least a century after his
death, and that was part of a deliberate propaganda campaign by
protestants in Germany, in among a number of other blatant, and
*bad*, lies.
I'll wager that you have lots of interesting rewritten histories to
share with us. Start checking that Wikipedia entry; you'll still be a
moron afterwards, but at least you'll have had the choice.
If the Wikipedia entry says what you claim it does, which I doubt, it lies.
But you knew that.
Retard.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
02 May 2005 07:07:40 PM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary wrote:
James <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:117dam6d80op863@corp.supernews.com:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
James <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:117d59t1amnalbc@corp.supernews.com:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
James <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:117csps8lil08e2@corp.supernews.com:
Gallileo.
What about him?
An counter-example to the claim "...the Church played a positive role
in the development of science..."
Aside from a single counter example not even coming close to
disproving the overall claim (and only a 'tard would think it did)
Hey, there's a great start to a post.
What do you expect when your entire response consists of a logical error
based on an outright lie? There isn't much there to respond to.
Not only do you get your
panties in a bunch and fall all over yourself trying to explain away a
historic fact, you call me a retard.
You *are* a retard.
It might bother me if you didn't
proceed to fumble about for arguments like a virgin with his first
hooker.
And yet, Galileo was not arrested for teaching science, he was arrested for
teaching theology.
Galileo was persecuted and silenced for speaking science when it went
against religion. It doesn't disprove the overall claim, but it's a
fucking sterling counter-example.
It's also complete and utter *****. The original trial records still
exist, 'tard-boy. The heliocentric model was never at issue.
Then post them. You desperately need evidence to support your claims,
because so far you've provided ***** all to support your idiocy.
Galileo was
arrested, specifically, for teaching the bible was wrong. At no point was
his book unavailable to the general public (other than the fact that most
couldn't afford to buy books at all, of course). Masturbate as furiously as
you want over the facts, they're still the facts.
Absolute fucking *****, proven to be absolute fucking ***** in
your argument with Mephisto. Since you obviously didn't read it the
first fucking time, here's a repost:
James wrote:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo, under the "Church
Controversy" heading (since you're probably not capable of reading the
whole thing).
"Publication was another matter. His Dialogue had been put on the Index
Librorum Prohibitorum, the official black list of banned books, where it
stayed until 1822 (Hellman, 1998). Though the sentence announced against
Galileo mentioned no other works, Galileo found out two years later that
publication of anything he might ever write had been quietly banned. The
ban was effective in France, Poland, and German states, but not in the
Netherlands."
If you're going to discredit Wikipedia, post your reasons why. They
have their sources spelled out at the bottom of the page. Nine of them.
If you can't refute them, then kindly shut the ***** up, troll.
This is like arguing with a monkey, and about as stimulating.
The Church did
absolutely nothing to supress Galileo's work on the heliocentric
model of the solar system. Which, BTW, was actually the work of
Copernicus, who, BTW, was a priest, and nearly a bishop at least
twice, and who only published his work, on his deathbed, at the
request of two friends, one a bishop, the other a cardinel. Galileo
didn't do much actual work on the theory, he merely provided some
empircal support.
That's not even re-writing history, that's taking a great big ***** on
a great scientist.
It's historical fact, well supported by the original trial records.
That you haven't posted, nor provided excerpts from, nor linked to.
What powerful debating skills you have! I'm going to create an effigy
of you and take a big steaming ***** on it.
Copernicus waited until his deathbed because he
knew your church would punish him for it. A suspicion proven correct
when his student didn't do the same.
The letters to and from Copernicus still exist. He didn't want to publish
because he wasn't finished. His theory was *wrong*, and he knew it, because
it did not accurately predict planetary movements. He published part of it
twelve years before his death, and it was well recieved, in the Church and
outside it. The letters from Cardinal Schonberg and Bishop Giese of Culm,
urging him to publish the rest before it was lost, still exist. He also
dedicated it to the Pope, which required explicit, written permission of
the Pope, legally.
I'd like to see some references, if you'd be so kind. No reasonable
human being would take your word on anything.
In other words, you're simply full of *****. As expected.
Chant it as much as you want, fuckwit. Ain't true.
(BTW, it was protestants who objected to the helicentric model during
Copernicus' lifetime, not the Catholic Church.)
Ignoring the fact that they tried and imprisoned Galileo for it. You're
nowhere near smart enough to be sneaky.
Galileo spent his life working on the theories of Copernicus,
Actually, he spent far more of his life working on gravity and
hydrodynamics, but don't let a little fact get in the way of your
masturbation.
Observe now as the resident Galileo expert provides yet another piece of
unsubstantiated evidence.
perfected the telescope, and did massive amounts of work in physics.
He practically invented astronomy. How dare you ***** on him by
attributing his work to others!
Galileo didn't contribute anything substantial to the heliocentric model.
He made observations that supported it, but he still couldn't make it work
better than the ptolemaic system for predicting planetary movements.
So he made observations that supported it, yet didn't contribute
anything to the theory? It isn't the SAME FUCKING THING?
***** man! Think before you type!
Galileo had more support among clerical scholars, in point of fact,
than among secular scientists.
No one has or would claim that everyone in the church is an idiot.
Just a great many of them, including you.
I'm not a Catholic. I'm not a Christian. I'm not a theist.
As if that precludes you from being an arrogant *****.
You are a retard.
Again, keep repeating it. You don't have facts to fall back on, after all.
He provided much of the evidence that led to the Tychonian model being
overturned. "Proving" a theory wrong rarely centers on one person or
one competing theory.
Which is a completely different thing from proving Copernicus right, but
you knew that. That's why you tried to change the subject. Because you know
you're full of *****. So you're a retard *and* a liar.
You can't even follow the subject and you're accusing me of changing it?
Like I said, know your strengths and stick to fellatio.
Until Newton developed calculus, the heliocentric model was
an interesting theory, but utterly unprovable - and the ptolemaic
model provded significantly more accurate predictions of planetary
movements, because Copernicus (and Galileo) assumed perfectly
circular orbits, which was incorrect.
What are you talking about?
Which word don't you understand?
It was rhetoric, dipshit. Try to follow along.
The Ptolemaic model had been largely
abandoned by the time of Galileo. What kind of idiot source do you
get your information from?
Historical sources. Many of them.
Obviously nothing real, you mean. Because every single thing I've
looked up during this "conversation" (and given references from) has
proven you wrong and stupid.
What kind of bubble gum wrapper are you
making ***** up from?
They're usually called "books." Try reading them instead of trolling,
you raving dipshit.
Johannes Kepler demonstrated that orbits were elliptical, not the
Ptolemaic model, as you imply.
Only a retard could possibly think I'd said that.
It's exactly what you implied. If you can't even understand your own
words, it isn't surprising that you can't understand those of everyone else.
And since you apparently missed this
distinction, the planets orbit the Sun, not vice-versa. That is only
one of many, many reasons why the Copernican theory was of more value
than the Ptolemaic.
Except for predicting planetary movements, of course, for which it was of
considerably less value.
Why are you arguing the accuracy of the theory? The existence and
teaching of the theory is what this is about. Do try to follow along.
Theories evolve, and the Copernican spin was the one of the first
steps towards our present knowledge.
Yes. And the Catholic Church paid for the research that developed it, and
promoted it. They just didn't like Galileo claiming the bible was wrong.
It *was* wrong, and he proved it. That's the fucking point here,
dipshit. Do try to follow along.
In the end, however, Galileo was not arrested for saying the earth
revolved around the sun, he was arrested for saying he'd proven the
bible wrong.
The two are synonymous, asshead.
You *are* a retard.
They're still synonymous, asshead.
He DID prove the bible wrong, or at
least the leading interpretation of it,
They are not the same thing, retard.
They're the exact same thing, asshead.
which to the Inquisition was
the exact same fricking thing.
Then why did the trial court make a distinction between the two, and tell
Galileo, *in* *writing*, that he could say the current interpretation of
the bible was wrong, but not that the bible was wrong? It's in the fucking
trial records, retard, along with Galileo's lies that he would teach it the
acceptable way.
The trial records that no one besides you have apparently studied.
Saying you have evidence isn't the same as providing evidence, dipshit.
That was the first time he stood trial. You *were* aware he stood
trial twice, weren't you? Weren't you?
Considering how much blatantly wrong information you've given so far,
I wouldn't start fumbling for insults too.
You didn't answer the question. And you won't. Ever. Will you?
Yeah, they got 'im the second time. Silenced him, banned his books, and
put him under house arrest for the rest of his life. Is that a good
enough answer, dipshit?
He was given a slap on the wrist, and told
"don't do that again," and that was it. He promised to teach that
_our understanding_ of the bible must be wrong. He promised on solemn
oath. He lied his ***** off, of course, and withing weeks, he was
teaching he'd proven the bible wrong again.
Look, I don't have time to rebut every single piece of ***** you're
giving. The Sun would burn out.
In other words, you admit I'm right.
In other words, I don't have the time to refute every idiot *****
more than once. I do my best, but we all have our limits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo
Educate yourself. You desperately need it.
I prefer histories written by people who read the original records.
Then you'll love Wikipedia. Oh wait, it proves you wrong! Guess not.
Were you aware that a number of people were explicitly permitted to say
that the Church did not condemn the heliocentric model in any way,
including Augustus De Morgan, von Gebler, and Riceloll? We're talking 1616
on this, BTW, and earlier.
Who said that the entire church was against the heliocentric model?
Don't put your own dipshit words in my mouth. Their consensus regarding
the theory remained the same, and that's what John Paul apologized for
just recently.
And even then, nobody really cared, until he pissed
off, again, some powerful enemy. (He had a habit of doing that. He
liked to set up public demonstrations of his new work, and invite
those who claimed he was wrong to them, so he could humiliate them as
publicly as possible. Galileo was a complete and utter *****. He'd
have been right at home on Usenet.) The second arrest and trial was,
again, over teaching theology, not science, and was far more about
pissing off the wrong politician than anything else. The excuse was
publishing his work on the heliocentric model, and putting in writing
that he'd proven the bible was wrong.
I should ask, are you actively trying to lie or or are you just
spectacularly ignorant? Read the Wikipedia entry.
Why bother? I've read histories written by people who based their work on
the oroginal trial records and correspondance.
It's too bad they only exist in your own mind, dipshit. You could've
posted them two hours ago and saved yourself the trouble of being proven
a moron.
And even then, after he was placed under house arrest (in the house
of a noble friend, where he life out his life in comfort and
privilige), at no point was his work unavailable to the general
public. One sentence was changed, to correct his erroneous theology,
but the science was not. And the unabridged version, word for word,
was generally available to scientists on top of that.
Considering the Church *paid* *for* Copernicus' original work on the
matter, and, IIRC, paid for at least part of Galileo's work, I'd say
your "counterexample" is actually a damned good example of how
fucking stupid - and wrong - you are.
Yeah, and they merely put him under house arrest and denied access to
medical treatment.
What medical treatment? Cite your sources. What medical condition, and what
treatment was available, and what evidence is there that it was denied?
I answered this in the other thread. Do try to keep up.
Regardless, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo (AGAIN, try
fucking READING so I don't have to recite every source):
"Because of a painful hernia, he requested permission to consult
physicians in Florence, which was denied by Rome, which warned that
further such requests would lead to imprisonment."
Additional sources are provided at the end of the document.
Nothing big, eh? Ignore my earlier question,
What question is that? The one where you ask to ***** some more?
Fantasize in private, dipshit. The only thing you're going to get from
me is some ***** in your floppy *****.
since it's pretty fucking obvious you're far past spectacularly
ignorant. I'm sure the spectacularly ignorant are insulted that I've
lumped you in with them.
I'm sure you're a retard and a liar. You've admitted both.
Chant it some more. You've almost convinced everyone.
I thought
Not that I can see.
You must deal with people proving you stupid and wrong every day, so
that really doesn't surprise me.
I know you are, but what am I?
A ***** that's lost an argument.
it was pretty self-explanatory.
Indeed, it was. It explained that you accept whatever hateful lies
you are spoon fed without question - isn't that what atheists hate
about theists? - and perpetuate it. The original trial records of
both Galileo's trials still exist, as do fairly extensive other
documents to provide context.
He was tried (and convicted) for arguing with the Bible.
Liar. He was tried and convicted, twice, for saying the bible was wrong
(after promising he would use more politically correct terminology the
first time, and lying).
Wrong. Read my earlier citations, and do try to keep up.
"...he was
arrested for saying he'd proven the bible wrong," you wrote. You
can't even manage to be consistently wrong properly.
You can't even manage to swallow completely between the blowjobs you give.
Now you've got semen stains all over your favorite shirt.
Translation: "Okay, you got me." It's been quite a while since I've
seen someone lose an argument in such a spectacular fashion.
Congratulations on writing a massive post. I'm sure you put a lot of
effort into it. The fact that it was devoid of truth, worth, or
intelligence shouldn't diminish your achievement. Truly, you're a
credit to your faith.
Thank you for admitting I'm right.
Of course, I did no such thing.
(I'm not a theist, BTW.
I'm sure your history of sucking cocks for spare change would make it
difficult to be one.
Merely someone
who is interested in the truth.
Yet you have posted nothing but *****.
The Church has many things to answer for.
Galileo isn't one of the. Only retards think he is.)
If by "retards" you mean "everyone capable of reading a fucking history
book," anyway. Again, provide sources or shut the ***** up.
BTW, he also never uttered "And yet, it moves." There is no trace of
that line being attributed to him until at least a century after his
death, and that was part of a deliberate propaganda campaign by
protestants in Germany, in among a number of other blatant, and
*bad*, lies.
I'll wager that you have lots of interesting rewritten histories to
share with us. Start checking that Wikipedia entry; you'll still be a
moron afterwards, but at least you'll have had the choice.
If the Wikipedia entry says what you claim it does,
It does.
which I doubt,
Because you haven't read it.
it lies.
How do you know?
But you knew that.
Why would I have posted and defended a position I knew was wrong? I
know this kind of a response is common on usenet, but it never struck me
as anything but a battle cry from the person that just lost an argument.
Retard.
You've proven yourself oh so VERY much more than that.
--
James B, master of the tri-pronged scrotal mount
aa #944
"All that belongs to human understanding, in this
deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical,
or at least cautious; and not to admit of any
hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which
is supported by no appearance of probability."
-David Hume
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
03 May 2005 10:15:15 AM |
|
|
You've already admitted I'm right. How many times do you need to suck my
*****?
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs no x, please" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
04 May 2005 07:55:04 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 May 2005 15:15:15 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
You've already admitted I'm right. How many times do you need to suck my
*****?
Until you get an erection?
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
04 May 2005 10:42:06 AM |
|
|
Jos Flachs <XwcruiseX@ksc15.th.com (no x, please)> wrote in
news:ko2g719k01k0gnkuk38vjh8hbqurnueui8@4ax.com:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 15:15:15 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
You've already admitted I'm right. How many times do you need to suck my
*****?
Until you get an erection?
I know you are, but what am I?
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Black Monk" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
03 May 2005 07:19:38 AM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary did a good job wiping your face in your own b.s. One
thing to note, is your reliance on wikipedia. Wikipedia's entries are
written by any random person of the internet. You or I can submit an
entry in wikipedia. It's hardly a definitive source.
BM
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
03 May 2005 10:18:01 AM |
|
|
"The Black Monk" <cherniymonakh@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1115122778.086793.218920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
No 33 Secretary did a good job wiping your face in your own b.s. One
thing to note, is your reliance on wikipedia. Wikipedia's entries are
written by any random person of the internet. You or I can submit an
entry in wikipedia. It's hardly a definitive source.
Indeed. It is very, very good at perpetuating well known errors.
But questioning it will start a holy war worse than this one, you know.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
03 May 2005 02:38:18 PM |
|
|
On 3 May 2005 05:19:38 -0700, "The Black Monk"
<cherniymonakh@hotmail.com> wrote:
No 33 Secretary did a good job wiping your face in your own b.s. One
thing to note, is your reliance on wikipedia. Wikipedia's entries are
written by any random person of the internet. You or I can submit an
entry in wikipedia. It's hardly a definitive source.
LOL! And yet you believe that an incredibly biased and revisionist
book which claims that the Catholic Church was the foundation of
western civilization *is* a definitive source?
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Black Monk" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
03 May 2005 03:02:53 PM |
|
|
Mephisto wrote:
On 3 May 2005 05:19:38 -0700, "The Black Monk"
<cherniymonakh@hotmail.com> wrote:
No 33 Secretary did a good job wiping your face in your own b.s.
One
thing to note, is your reliance on wikipedia. Wikipedia's entries
are
written by any random person of the internet. You or I can submit
an
entry in wikipedia. It's hardly a definitive source.
LOL! And yet you believe that an incredibly biased and revisionist
book which claims that the Catholic Church was the foundation of
western civilization *is* a definitive source?
That book's author's biography:
Professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr. holds a bachelor's degree in history
from Harvard and his Ph.D. from Columbia. His books include the New
York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to American
History, The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free
Economy, and the just-released How the Catholic Church Built Western
Civilization.
So he is more of a definitive source than some random entry on
wikipedia.
Having said that, I would be interested in seeing if anyone could find
legitimate info that disconfirmed some of Woods' claims. Over 100
posts later, nobody has. Indeed, the empty vitriol and reliance on
sources that lack credibility merely bolster Woods' condition and have
made the lot of you atheists look like fanatics/"True Believers"
incapable of participating in a rational discourse.
regards,
BM
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
03 May 2005 03:09:36 PM |
|
|
"The Black Monk" <cherniymonakh@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1115150573.073646.232250@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Mephisto wrote:
On 3 May 2005 05:19:38 -0700, "The Black Monk"
<cherniymonakh@hotmail.com> wrote:
No 33 Secretary did a good job wiping your face in your own b.s.
One
thing to note, is your reliance on wikipedia. Wikipedia's entries
are
written by any random person of the internet. You or I can submit
an
entry in wikipedia. It's hardly a definitive source.
LOL! And yet you believe that an incredibly biased and revisionist
book which claims that the Catholic Church was the foundation of
western civilization *is* a definitive source?
That book's author's biography:
Professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr. holds a bachelor's degree in history
from Harvard and his Ph.D. from Columbia. His books include the New
York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to American
History, The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free
Economy, and the just-released How the Catholic Church Built Western
Civilization.
So he is more of a definitive source than some random entry on
wikipedia.
Having said that, I would be interested in seeing if anyone could find
legitimate info that disconfirmed some of Woods' claims. Over 100
posts later, nobody has. Indeed, the empty vitriol and reliance on
sources that lack credibility merely bolster Woods' condition and have
made the lot of you atheists look like fanatics/"True Believers"
incapable of participating in a rational discourse.
Was there ever any doubt in your mind?
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
