Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Reminds me a little of....

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
-- Cardinal Bellarmine

It is nothing new for Christian authorities to make bold statements that would logically cause them to lose faith if contradicted by solid evidence.

It is also nothing new for those same individuals to completely ignore what they have said before, and continue their own crusades with, if anything, increased vigor.

Posted by: Jason Failes | July 16, 2008 9:57 AM

This is great news! Once the Culture War is over, we can concentrate on those other long-running campaigns: the Battle of the Sexes and the War on Drugs.

Posted by: Herod the Freemason | July 16, 2008 10:13 AM

No, it's a trick to lull us into a false sense of security. Don't listen to him Ed.

Posted by: Richard Eis | July 16, 2008 10:15 AM

I like how he says that the "homosexuals" might defeat the initiative in a way that implies that every person voting against it is homo.

I knew California has a lot of gays, but 50% of the electorate? Learn something new every day.

Posted by: Chris Bell | July 16, 2008 10:25 AM

Taking biblical data into consideration, one can conclude that God was very angry at that move.

"biblical data" ... awesome

Posted by: yoshi | July 16, 2008 10:34 AM

Thony C:

Roberto Cardinal Bellarmino did not write that, but something reasonably close to it. In his letter to the Most Reverend Prior Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Bellarmino wrote:

"... but insisting that the Sun is really at the center of the universe, only turning upon itself but not running from East to West, and that the Earth is located in the third heaven and runs at high speed around the Sun, is a very dangerous thing that could not only irritate all Scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also damage the Holy Faith by falsifying the Holy Scriptures;... and it would be just as heretical who were to say that Abraham did not have two and Jacob twelve children, as who were to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, since both things are said by the Holy Ghost through the Prophets and Apostles." (translation is mine, and so's the blame for any mistake).

In the letter, Bellarmino was suggesting that there was a way out of the mess: had Galileo simply declared that his heliocentric theory was a convenient mathematical artifact, all would have been fine; the problem was his insistence that it was a true description of reality.

Posted by: Aureola Nominee, FCD | July 16, 2008 10:54 AM

Why are we gays the harbingers of the end for Christians? I seem to be able to be gay while they are Christian, why can't they be Christian while I am gay?

Posted by: J | July 16, 2008 11:09 AM

Because that would be the sensible thing to do, and the sensible thing to do doesn't give them a bogey man to be the object of their irrational fear and hatred.

Posted by: Wes | July 16, 2008 11:22 AM

Culture war--over? I doubt that. The war between religion and progress has been going on since the advent of christianity almost 2 millenia ago. Christianity was, I believe, the first evangelistic, exclusionary (in terms of believing itself to be the One True Faith) religion to actually succeed in spreading its anti-reason influence world-wide. Its first great political triumph was the conversion of Constantine with its concurrent rise in status to being the eastern Roman Empire's official religion. Christianity's first great triumph against reason and progress, of course, being the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, and the incalculable loss of classical learning thereby. Do any of us really believe that a religion with roots like those is going to curl up and concede defeat on the basis of one state's vote on a single issue?

Even if Wildmon is serious about conceding his battle against gay marriage (which I don't believe for an instant; his statement is doubtless a tactic to galvanize religious right voters in California), they've got 48 other states in which to wage this war. Then let's remember the religious right's battles concerning abortion, creationism, and the separation of church & state, all issues in which the right continues to wage vigorous battle against the forces of reason and progress.

I know I'm phrasing things in rather dramatic terms, but that's really how I'm seeing it. I'm willing to happily concede that the RR is in something of disarray and retreat these days, but the culture war will never be over.

Posted by: gary l. day | July 16, 2008 11:32 AM

Hot damn! That would be great if the other side acknowledges defeat!

Problem is: Those guys are goddamn little liars. Folks think they go around with their hands folded in pious prayer all the time. Nope. They go around with their fingers crossed behind their backs all the time. Can't trust them.

Posted by: zeno | July 16, 2008 11:59 AM

I wonder whatever happened with the Federal Marriage Amendment. Haven't heard much about it since the next day after the elections. Lol.

Posted by: 386sx | July 16, 2008 12:47 PM

Soda wars of the 80's? Was that the new Coke vs. classic Coke? I'm afraid I lost out on that one; I preferred new Coke, alas. When classic Coke prevailed, I had to switch to Pepsi. Ah well... You win some... :)

Posted by: gary l. day | July 16, 2008 1:38 PM

They aren't going to give up that easily. He's saying that in the hopes of getting the mulleted masses out to vote in November, but more importantly, to send money. No, it's far from over.

Posted by: soboco | July 16, 2008 1:53 PM

Jason Failes wrote.

Why do you find it hard to believe Catholics of nearly four hundred years ago could say things that were so stupid?

I have at no point expressed any opinion on the capability to be stupid, or not as the case may be, of catholics I made a very specific statement about Roberto Bellarmine who was a highly educated, extremely intelligent man and one of the most skilled church diplomats of his or any other age. Both the translation produced by Aureola and the one linked to by yourself actually prove me right in my original contention. Bellarmine was far too careful to use a word such as erroneous but refers the whole time to articles of faith and heresies. It is not a question of truth or falsity but a question of that which has been determined by those in power i.e. the catholic hierarchy. If you bother to read the third point that Bellarmine makes you will note that he is more than prepared to accept that the geocentric world view is erroneous but only (my emphasis) if there is proof that it is erroneous, something that neither Galileo nor anybody else was capable of delivering at that time

Posted by: Thony C. | July 16, 2008 2:01 PM

Thony, to be fair, yes, the guy didn't directly compare the virgin birth to the heliocentric theory. But he did say that the now-obvious model of the solar system would succeed in "falsifying the Holy Scriptures" if it were proven. So I beg to differ that his position was "not a question of truth or falsity" - it was precisely that. Regardless of how smart he was, if that translation is accurate, he apparently was willing to stake his religious belief on a fantastical and wrong version of physics. And, moreover, the underlying point remains: every generation of Christians appears to have its popular fights with science (this one's is evolution), and science wins every time. That Christianity has not been utterly abandoned speaks to the ability of humans to rationalize anything into being compatible with their pet theory, which, in turn, indicates that the culture war will only be safely identified as over after the fact.

Posted by: larryniven | July 16, 2008 4:58 PM

A truly honest assessment of the gay marriage issue needs to ask the right questions. The really scary question for the religious right is WHY they have lost on this issue. I believe that the gay rights cause has won because it is connected to hetrosexual population wanting sexual freedom for themselves. The average hetrosexual wants to be able to live their lives without having to adhere to the Church's teaching. Joe Hetrosexual wants to be able to live and sleep with his unmarried girlfriend. He does not want the State to interfere. So that been the case then gay marriage becomes a non-issue for him. The more freedom everyone has then the more freedom he has. He may not even be comfortable with the idea of gay sex on a visceral level. But giving gays the space to do their thing means that he can also go about his business without the Church/State breathing down his neck.

Posted by: Cheddar | July 16, 2008 5:32 PM

larryniven wrote:

Regardless of how smart he was, if that translation is accurate, he apparently was willing to stake his religious belief on a fantastical and wrong version of physics.

Wrong! Bellarmine was willing to change his religious belief should an unternative cosmology (not physics; there is a very substantial difference) prove to be correct.

Just for the record, there is absolutely nothing fantastical about Ptolemaic cosmology, it's just plain common sense based on empirical observation. Viewed from the standpoint of what our senses tell us it it heliocenticity that is fantastical and that is what makes science so fascinating.

Posted by: Thony C. | July 16, 2008 5:53 PM

Ah, well, I wouldn't be so sure about Bellarmino's openmindedness. Not only because of his role as an inquisitor, although that might give us a clue as to his frame of mind, but because we've already seen this kind of claims from people closer to our times...

"Sure, I am willing to believe in evolution; it's just that there is NO evidence for it!"

"I am more than available to change my mind, as soon as you AGW fanatics do actual science and show me to my satisfaction that AGW is real, and not the OBVIOUS scam everybody can see!"

"Show me the studies that PROVE that mercury in vaccines does not cause autism! You're in the pocket of Big Pharma, or you would have NO problem in proving your claims!"

The Church didn't sanctify him for his openmindedness, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Aureola Nominee, FCD | July 16, 2008 6:43 PM

You would need to come up with a new blog name.

Dispatches From The Culture Insurgency?

Posted by: DaveL | July 16, 2008 8:18 PM

This is no defense of the cardinal or of his beliefs, but Thony originally said:

I have a great deal of difficulty in believing that Bellarmine said anything remotely as stupid as that.

And, therefore, seeing the full quote, I have to say Thony is correct.

This says nothing about what Bellarmine later thought or whether he was truthful, just that he was more careful about that specific statement, as Thony alluded.

Posted by: itchy | July 16, 2008 9:27 PM

secularism will replace Christianity as the foundation of our society,"
I think he meant "secularism will replace Christianity as established in our revision of the foundation of our society,"

Posted by: Lorax | July 17, 2008 12:06 AM

See, this is where I think you're being dishonest:

"When Bellarmino questioned the scientific status of heliocentricity he was merely echoing the state of scientific knowledge of the time and not being ignorant or narrow-minded."

It wasn't just the scientific status of the view, it was the religious status of the view (namely, he said quite clearly that heliocentricity could not be supported by Christianity). And what he did, on that translation above, was not to merely risk "changing" his religious views - to say that the Bible is false is to abandon those views altogether.

Look, I understand, and I think we all do, that the physics of heavenly bodies is really quite complicated and that anyone in that age would have been more or less justified in holding a terra-centric view on a purely scientific basis. But, despite all that, the Earth going around the Sun really is fantastical, just like the idea of a thunder god is fantastical despite how "common-sense" that idea might be to the scientifically ignorant. It seems very much like he - and lots of other Christians through history - have gone out of their way to say that a scientific theory is central to their religious views when that connection isn't necessary, warranted, or even accurate.

Put it this way: if the good cardinal had managed to live long enough to see terracentricity proven false, do you think he would have held the Bible to be false, as he said he would have? Equally, do you think the Christians who've apparently committed themselves to winning the mind/body debate, or the evolution debate, or the debate over homosexuality being a choice, or any other scientific debate would actually abandon Christianity if the science came down against them?

Posted by: larryniven | July 17, 2008 10:56 AM

Larry; your analysis ignores several important historical factors.
1. Bellarmino was not an ignorant dogmatic theologian but a highly skilled church diplomat who had received the best modern education, including the best scientific education, available anywhere in the world, a Jesuit one. Galileo had transcripts of the lectures in the mathematical sciences at the Collegio Romano sent to him to study and Clavius' mathematical textbooks were used at both catholic and protestant universities throughout the 17th century.
2. The whole purpose of the Jesuit education programme, introduced as part of the counter-reformation, was to stop confronting the new sciences with ignorant dogma and instead to have the best educated scientist who would be capable of integrating and interpreting the new sciences with the least damage and destruction to catholic theology.
3. The catholic church had and still has a long history of re-interpreting bible passages to fit the new times and new knowledge. No catholic theologian at the time of Bellarmino would have thought of insisting that Pi equals three or that the world was flat just because it says so in the bible.
4. In the Foscarini letter Bellarmino says quite explicitely that should the heliocentric hypothesis be proved true then "we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary..." In fact this is the basis of the dispute with Galileo, the interpretation of the bible is the job of the church and not of a lay man such as Galileo.
5. A great deal of the developments in astronomy and physics produced in the 17th century that eventually led to the acceptance of heliocentricity were produced by either Jesuit scientists, Scheiner, Grienberger, Guldin, Riccioli, Grimaldi, Kircher or Jesuit educated scientists, Descartes, Mersenne, Gassendi, Cassini. etc. Some historians of science have even suggested on the basis of very good historical evidence that the Jesuit scientists interpreted the Focarini letter as a challenge to prove the heliocentric hypothesis.

In light of all the above I would answer your question, if the good cardinal had managed to live long enough to see terracentricity proven false, do you think he would have held the Bible to be false, as he said he would have? with yes I think he almost certainly would have. However he would not have seen the bible as having been false merely falsely interpreted by mere mortals who had failed to correctly understand the word of god.

Posted by: Thony C. | July 17, 2008 1:28 PM

"Bellarmino was not an ignorant dogmatic theologian but a highly skilled church diplomat [etc.]"

Can you show me where I said otherwise? I said only that he's emblematic of the kind of believer who should make us wary of claims that the culture war (or any other dispute involving Christianity) is going to end any time soon. Your points 2 and 3 back this up entirely: certain doctrines are thought to be beyond scientific reproach, proven to be wildly inaccurate by science, and then abandoned with essentially no overall harm to Christianity as a whole. The cardinal was a fool in this case not for having his science wrong (even though it was very wrong) but for having his theology wrong - for overplaying his hand, so to speak.

If you want me to take your point 4 seriously, you have to first admit that the cardinal was lying earlier in the letter, because it's not possible for the heliocentric theory both to falsify the Bible and not to falsify it. Of course, even if I accept your 4, he still said too much. In terms of how much extra explaining had to be done about the Bible, bringing Christianity in line with reality in this case was trivial, so he wasn't even correct in his analysis of how difficult the process would be. No matter what you choose here, my point still stands: he overplayed his hand in saying that the scriptures would be accepted as false. I fail to see how your point 5 is relevant to this discussion, although I presume I should be impressed by your comprehensive knowledge of the history in this case. Finally, I will note that the cardinal - on your account not a stupid man - would probably have known the difference between "false" and "merely falsely interpreted by mere mortals who had failed to correctly understand the word of god." If he had meant the latter, why not just say that? Incidentally, it looks like you tried to answer my question both ways: yes, you say, he would have considered it false; but no, you then say, he would have not really considered it false, just badly read. I take it you really mean the latter of these, thus reinforcing again my theory that, despite being in the factual wrong and having explicitly expressed his own willingness to abandon at least some major part of his faith if he were wrong, he would not have actually done this. It's this kind of equivocating double-speak that allows the process to continue, by the way, so I encourage you to be more consistent in your terminology.

Posted by: larryniven | July 17, 2008 2:04 PM