…and this is a 
It's like Bambi vs. Godzilla, except no one would consider Donohue cute and innocent. In an interview, Hawking talked about gods:
"What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," Hawking told Sawyer. "They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."
When Sawyer asked if there was a way to reconcile religion and science, Hawking said, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
Straightforward and sensible, that's a scientist talking. Bill Donohue, who is anything but sensible, took exception to all that.
How any rational person could belittle the pivotal role that human life plays in the universe is a wonder, but it is just as silly to say that all religions are marked by the absence of reason. While there are some religions which are devoid of reason, there are others, such as Roman Catholicism, which have long assigned it a special place.
Human life plays a pivotal role in the universe? How? Is the orbit of Mars influenced by human activities, does the Andromeda galaxy, 2.5 million light years away, care in the slightest about a species so remote that they're still waiting for the glimmerings of light from the fires they used to roast a mammoth? We could wink out of existence right now and the universe would go on, fundamentally unchanged.
I agree that the Catholic church has assigned reason a special place: apologetics. Rationalizing the irrational. Throwing up a smokescreen of scholarship to hide the fact that deep down, they're worshipping a jealous bronze age patriarchal myth wedded to a howling crazy Eastern mystery religion. But they aren't any different than any other religion: for instance, the Baptists found universities and pay lip service to logic, too. As Hawking said, science works, and every charlatan in every church dreams of hitching a ride on its record.
It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities, and it was the Catholic Church that played a central role in the Scientific Revolution; these two historical contributions made possible Mr. Hawking's career.
Reason, in pursuit of truth, has been reiterated by the Church fathers for nearly two millennia. That is why Hawking posits a false conflict: in the annals of the Catholic Church, there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. Quite the contrary: science and religion, in Catholic thought, are complementary properties. Ergo, nothing is gained by alleging a "victory" of science over religion.
The Catholic Church was a religion laced throughout the substrate of Western culture; everyone was Catholic (or alternatively, after the 16th century, some flavor of Protestant), and being anything else was not tenable because the Catholic Church would set you on fire. After centuries of waging war on every alternative that emerged, the Church does not now get to claim, "Oh, yeah, we did that" when a powerful and better way of thinking does manage to rise up out of the foolishness of superstition.
There is an inherent conflict between science and religion. Mr Donohue believes a cracker turns into a slice of god in his mouth; he thinks there is a magic man in the sky who speaks to the Pope; he believes a series of rituals will allow an invisible ghost in his body go to Disneyland in Space after his meat dies. He also believes that one young species of ape on this planet somehow plays a "pivotal role" in affairs on Jupiter. These are irrational, unscientific beliefs — they are anti-science, because he believes in arriving at conclusions because they are what he wishes to be true, or because the dogma has been repeated to him enough times, or because someone claims a supernatural revelation.
Sure, science arose out of Catholicism…in the same sense that plumbing, sanitation systems, and public health policies arose out of sewage.
Comments
Posted by: mck9
|
June 9, 2010 9:10 AM
...by opposing it at every turn.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 9, 2010 9:10 AM
This.
(/Fixed it for him, accordingly.)
Posted by: johnlil#0a224
|
June 9, 2010 9:17 AM
I wonder if Donohue considers astronomy a science? It's a shame we can't ask Galileo what the church did for that discipline.
Jebus, this is quite possibly the stupidest public figure in the world criticizing the most intelligent person in the world, and he's too stupid to know it.
Posted by: Moggie
|
June 9, 2010 9:23 AM
Ok, so they murdered the occasional scientist. Big deal. They were actually helping science, by selecting for non-combustible thinkers.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
June 9, 2010 9:26 AM
Sure, science arose out of Catholicism…in the same sense that plumbing, sanitation systems, and public health policies arose out of sewage.
Ah, you’re talkin’ shit now. You go, bro!
Posted by: umkomasia
|
June 9, 2010 9:27 AM
The Catholic Church's role in Western history summarized in one phrase "and being anything else was not tenable because the Catholic Church would set you on fire."
Can we have your permission to that put in T-shirts PZ?
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 9, 2010 9:29 AM
Of the eight planets and several dwarf planets in our system, we've only had an effect on one. We have had no effect on our sun. There are 400 billion stars in this galaxy that we have not affected. There are billions of galaxies with billions of stars we have not affected. Other than sending out some radio waves, we have had no discernible effect on the universe outside our planet, aside from some footprints on our moon, a dead robot or two on mars, and a few satellite probes. An individual ant has a more pivotal role in the history of the Earth than we do in the universe. It was the Catholic Church that forced Galileo to spend the last 8 years of his life in house arrest for daring to right a book about heliocentrism. It was the Catholic Church that told Africans that condoms cause AIDS. The special place that the RCC has assigned for reason is the trash heap, which happens to be where reason assigns the Church as well.Posted by: Amenhotepstein
|
June 9, 2010 9:31 AM
Apparently that place is up some altarboy's ass. Explains why so many priests get caught searching up there...
Posted by: Rickety Cricket
|
June 9, 2010 9:33 AM
I'm thinking Donohue isn't a fan of the previously mentioned film "Agora."
Posted by: cairne.morane
|
June 9, 2010 9:35 AM
"It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities,"
Universities primarily setup to educate the clergy.
"and it was the Catholic Church that played a central role in the Scientific Revolution;"
In much the same way that the Klu Klux Klan played a central role in the civil rights struggle in 1950s.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 9, 2010 9:36 AM
WATB Donohue is all over the news today whining about the Empire State Building not being set aglow for the 100th anniversary of Mother Teresa's birth:
Posted by: Amenhotepstein
|
June 9, 2010 9:39 AM
Oh yeah, and this beaut...
made me LOL. Go look through a telescope sometime. Better yet, go visit the Hubble Space Telescope image gallery sometime. Then come back and tell me how "pivotal" we are.
Sometimes the sheer arrogance of these theists really gets me.
Posted by: JD
|
June 9, 2010 9:40 AM
Yes, our pivotal role. Anthropogenic global warming. How could we forget?
Posted by: Blondin
|
June 9, 2010 9:42 AM
Perhaps he's thinking of Flash Gordon making the universe safe from arch villains like Ming the Merciless (and others).
Posted by: computingintelligence
|
June 9, 2010 9:47 AM
Of course humans play a pivotal role in the universe! We defeated the Goa'uld and the replicators, and in a few hundred years we will prevent a Dominion take-over of the Alpha quadrant.
Posted by: toth
|
June 9, 2010 9:48 AM
A++. Would read again.
Posted by: jaranath
|
June 9, 2010 9:48 AM
RamblinDude:
That's what I thought at first. But if you really think about it... Well, he's still talking shit, but he's exactly right (yeah, I know you probably knew that and were going for the double entendre...) Science is how we deal with the problems of ignorance and magical thinking that are embodied by (and encouraged by) religion.
Donohue never ceases to apall me, but this time around is special. It's got all his fawning over the Catholic Church, his sense of special privilege, his default assumption of persecution, and his ignorance. But to pretend the Church had nothing to do with the Dark Ages? To pretend the Renaissance and the scientific revolution had nothing to do with the weakening of the Church's power?
Posted by: trog69
|
June 9, 2010 9:50 AM
BillD'oh has been on a tear about the Mother Teresa flap for a week at least, aratina cage. He relates each day's conquests, all of them Catholic elementary/secondary schools, that he has cajoled into protesting for the owner of the Empire State Bldg. to display a lighting pattern of Mom Teresa's "colors".
Mother Teresa, just like Tinkerbell, must have those lights or all her works will be in vain. Forcing a private company to comply with their religious wishes isn't fascist takeovers, 'cause only libs do that kinda shit.
Posted by: Westcoaster
|
June 9, 2010 9:50 AM
Sounds like someone needs to take a spin in the total perspective vortex.
Posted by: jash.jacob
|
June 9, 2010 9:55 AM
And, also to note, even though the present surviving universities may be found by catholics ( I don't know if that is true, the first university is said to be the Budhist university at Takshashila (Taxila). Or was that the first university in the east? It definitely was much before Christ was even born.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
June 9, 2010 9:56 AM
Allright class, can we think of some examples of the "special place" the catholic church has placed reason?
I'll get us started:
Miracles
Coppernicus
Galileo
Shroud of Turin
Exorcism
Condoms
Posted by: Tulse
|
June 9, 2010 10:00 AM
Does Donohue feel the need to expostulate on every random comment made by a public figure that are vaguely related to religion in general?
Man, he needs to get some new hobbies.
Posted by: raven
|
June 9, 2010 10:02 AM
OK. What is "the pivotal role that human life plays in the universe". News to me.
No idea what Donohue means here but it is clearly nonsense. As an example of spectacularly inept xian thinking, it does have some value though as an incorrect but humorous statement.
Posted by: sorceror171
|
June 9, 2010 10:03 AM
Astronomy grew out of astrology, and still uses many of the same terms. Chemistry grew out of alchemy. But that doesn't imply that there's any truth to either astrology or alchemy.
Even if one assumed that Christianity was necessary to develop science - and I don't - that doesn't say anything about whether Christianity is true.
Posted by: Rmlind
|
June 9, 2010 10:03 AM
We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchic Church defines it thus.
St. Ignatius Loyola, Spiritual Exercises no 365, 1548
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/jZhIlPY31sY2ggVrbwTiKnOpEsBiiibK#512cf
|
June 9, 2010 10:04 AM
The trouble with analogies is that they're hard. I don't think the Bambi v Godzilla analogy really works out very well. Are we really comparing Stephen Hawking to Godzilla?
Godzilla mostly smashes buildings and terrorizes the populace (I'll grant that it depends greatly on which kaiju movie you're watching). It's unclear if he's aware of his own inevitable death or what his place is in the world. He is no great thinker, in any case.
Bambi may be weak, slow, and make a good snack for Godzilla, but Bambi ends his particular story somewhat enlightened and sentient. Granted, these are not qualities deer usually have, but it's a movie.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94
|
June 9, 2010 10:05 AM
Undoubtly the Catholic Church did some bad moves about science, e.g. with Galilei. I am not a historian, I am a physicist, but I am a curious one who likes to dig into other areas as well such as history. Right now I am reading an old book by C Harold King, "A History of Civilization the Story of Our Heritage". The impression I get is that the church (as well as the muslims during their "golden age") played an important role during the chaotic time after the fall of Rome, to transmit the important texts and findings by e.g. the ancient greeks to our time. Of course the knowledge and methods of the greeks was nothing compared to modern methods, but it was the important start. You must learn to crawl before you can walk. Some of the Church's philosophy is not that bad either, even from the point of view of the famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell in his book "History of Western Philosophy", e.g. of St Augustine 400 AD or so.
As I said, I am not an historian myself, but perhaps that also applies to some other people here? Bias due to atheism is not better than bias due to religion. Anyway, if this picture is correct, the church (and muslims) should be rightfully acknowledged for that.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
June 9, 2010 10:06 AM
There were several universities before the perversion of Catholicism.
Nalanda in India was established in the late 5th century CE, 6 centuries before Bologna. Unfortunately, a Muslim nutbag destroyed it for not having a copy of the Koran in its library. The library burned for weeks, or maybe months. Been a while since I read about it.
I think one of the SE Asian countries also had a university before Bologna did. I want to say it was in Vietnam or Cambodia, because I keep associating it with memories of looking for interesting sites in their travel guides, but it may have been Thailand.
Posted by: samilobster
|
June 9, 2010 10:07 AM
How any rational person could belittle the pivotal role that human life plays in the universe is a wonder, but it is just as silly to say that all religions are marked by the absence of reason. While there are some religions which are devoid of reason, there are others, such as Roman Catholicism, which have long assigned it a special place.
He doesn't say it flat out, but notice the admission that he considers every single religion illogical except for Catholicism which I'll bet money his entire family and almost every person who's influenced his life has also been a member of. Funny how practically every believer claims to have 'logically' decided just like Bill here that those hundreds of religions they know next to nothing about are bullshit and the religion they've been surrounded by their entire life is the correct one.
It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities
I'm no historian, but I'm guessing the concept of a university is older than 2000 years. A LOT older. Maybe he means 'true' universities have only been with the catholic church, just like 'true' Christians.
What he doesn't get is its contra: science without faith also leads to disaster—the genocidal regimes in Germany, the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia being Exhibits A, B, C and D.
yeah those Nazi's really hated faith:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.
But surely Hitler was guided by that godless science, it's not like Bill is just lieing through his teeth.
Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 9, 2010 10:12 AM
You're forgetting that the sun, the other planets, and by extension the entire universe, revolve around the earth. Wait. Can you do that and still claim Copernicus & Galileo?
Posted by: asidity
|
June 9, 2010 10:14 AM
@jash.jacob (#20):
I think you're correct, Taxila was indeed one of the earliest centres of higher learning. However, some scholars don't consider it to be a "university" in the modern sense. In that case, the Greeks would have had the oldest university (again, well before Christ and Catholicism).
Posted by: baldywilson
|
June 9, 2010 10:14 AM
I must be very much mistaken then, for I had assumed that the Index Librorum Prohibitorum was a list of book, both scientific and philosophical, banned by the Catholic Church. Silly me. They must have just been compiling a compelling reading list.
Posted by: jbeck.myopenid.com
|
June 9, 2010 10:18 AM
jash, Takshashila was a center of Hindu learning well after the emergence of Buddhism, after which it seems to have become a center of Mahayana Buddhism. It may not have been a university like place on the lines of the larger Nalanda which emerged a few centuries later in the early years of CE, in modern day Bihar. We are still trying to piece together artifacts and manuscripts and it looks like a lot of old theories on these centers of learning will have to be rejected. Whatever they were, they were centers of learning and even licensure. There may have been other centers in other places in those early days. Although modern universities can trace their past to christian centers of learning, they have moved far beyond to become almost unrecognizable. The US public university is a unique creature possibly best compared with the secularised Sorbonne, and the University College of London. These were established to be everything that the medieval christian university wasn't. There's also plenty of evidence that suggests that for the 1st 400 years or so, European universities were hotbeds of ignorance, and that most of the scientific advancement or technological understanding of the world around us happened outside among the trade guilds.
Posted by: GrantLa
|
June 9, 2010 10:19 AM
Sweet jebus crisco, but Donohue is a moron. The best bit out his response to Hawking is where he claims that science without religion leads, among other things, to the genocide in Cambodia..because, you know, Pol Pot was known for his great contributions to the advance of human knowledge through science. o.O
Posted by: raven
|
June 9, 2010 10:27 AM
Think you are overstating the case here.
1. Some historians claim the Catholic church was responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire. The timing is about right although correlation doesn't prove causation.
2. The era of Catholic hegemony is known as the Dark Ages.
3. The era of the overthrow of Catholic hegemony is known as the Enlightenment.
4. Much or most of the ancient knowledge was preseved by the Moslems who at one time, were leaders in science and invented among other things, distilled alcohol. One of the accomplishments of the Enlightenment was translating Arabic copies of Greek texts into European languages.
5. Everyone knows about the torching of Bruno and persecution of Galileo for heliocentrism. Copernicus himself was a bit cleverer. He waited until he was almost dead before publishing his theory. He strongly suspected, correctly, that the RCC would go on a witch hunt.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 9, 2010 10:28 AM
Apparently, I have to clarify the Bambi vs. Godzilla reference.
And some people take humorous analogies too damned literally.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
June 9, 2010 10:29 AM
It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities
Nope!..
Nalanda,in India, founded around 600 BCE
Nanjing, in China, founded around 258 BCE
Al Karaouine in Fez, Morocco, founded in 859 ACE
University of Bologna Italy, founded in 1088 ACE
(probably based on an Idea brought back from the crusades)
Medical education begun 3000 BCE in Sumar
Although the first Universities to award specified documentation were Western in origin.
None as deluded as the deluded!
Maybe Galileo or Copernicus particularly Bruno might have made relevant observations on that point.
Methinks the answers received would make the bhabi jeebus howl...and turn 'donkey breath' apoplectic!
What a complete limp dick...how the RCC must be proud of him!
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist
|
June 9, 2010 10:30 AM
Dear Bill,
Most days I truly loath your delusional rants that are oft amplified by piety, but today is different. Today you made me giggle like a little girl and I've no doubt that this will continue to echo throughout the day. As a matter of fact I'm so giddy that were you near me at this moment I'd hop into your lap and give you a big sloppy kiss. No doubt your uncanny ability to divorce yourself from demonstrable reality is at the root of it, as indeed it knows no bounds. Thanks, big guy.
Completely heterosexually yours,
darv
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
June 9, 2010 10:33 AM
Sorry, nit-picking here: on the YouTube video I double-checked a moment ago Hawking actually says (with a mechanical voice, of course) implausible, not impossible.
"When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that [a personal god for humans] seems most implausible." (emphasis mine)
Just in case any of the devout want to parse out this quote to make the usual "he can't know it's impossible - look who's biased now" sort of argument.
Posted by: SaraJ
|
June 9, 2010 10:33 AM
I think Disneyland in Space would be an awesome place to be...just sayin'.
Posted by: beanfeast
|
June 9, 2010 10:33 AM
What Donahue also says is:
"What he doesn't get is its contra: science without faith also leads to disaster — the genocidal regimes in Germany, the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia being Exhibits A, B, C and D."
These countries are the usual suspects brought up by the faithful, but I in this case what he has written suggests not that these are atheist regimes, but rather they are technocratic regimes that were atheistic. However in all cases either one or both parts of his assumption are false
I assume he is refering to the Germany in which Hitler said "Without pledging ourselves to any particular Confession, we have restored faith to its pre-requisites because we were convinced that the people needs [sic] and requires [sic] this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
Perhaps he has forgotten that the Soviet Union forbade research into evolution in favour of Stalin's favoured Lysenkoism. It's some time since I applied the chemistry I studied at university, but I do not recall learning that it is political doctrine and not peer review which judges the worth of a theory.
Is he refering to China, where the Cultural Revolution led to closure of universities, folding of academic journals and the exile of intellectuals to the countryside?
And as for Cambodia he is so far off the mark that I don't know where to start, but for a flavour of what it was like consider that anyone who wore glasses was likely to be executed because it suggested that they might be literate.
Posted by: rprcvl
|
June 9, 2010 10:37 AM
So the Catholics founded the Library of Alexandria... And invented time travel? What the *fuck*?
Posted by: Tony Sidaway
|
June 9, 2010 10:42 AM
Interesting that Donohue should comment that Hawking owes his career to the church. For those who don't know, the Lucasian Chair once held by Isaac Newton and now held by Stephen Hawking is one of the few set up from the beginning to not require that the holder take holy orders. It has always been expressly secular.
That doesn't address Donohue's point that the Catholic church was an early patron of European universities, but it does set it in context.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
June 9, 2010 10:42 AM
Aratina @ 11
I'd like to know why the AJC failed to mention the Albanian Asswipe's withholding of pain relief to the dying in her care, and her sucking up to murderous dictators for their money.
Oh wait.
It's the American media. They don't have enough integrity to tell the truth anymore without the approval of their corporate masters.
You know maybe, just maybe, the Empire State Building people find her revolting because they know the truth about her. Who knows, maybe one of their relatives was in one of her "hospices." The article says she established one of her torture chambers in NYC.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
June 9, 2010 10:45 AM
Ah, truly, a clash of great mi....min... HAHAAAAAAHAHA sorry no, I can't do that with a straight face.
Donohue you retard!
Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com
|
June 9, 2010 10:45 AM
"Human life plays a pivotal role in the universe? How?"
PZ, to understand what Donohue says, you have to think like him. Oh, just for a very short while!
It all depends on what we mean by "universe". For us, and for Hawking, the universe is a pretty big thing. On the other hand, for Donohue, I doubt it's something much bigger than the United States. It's very likely, actually, that the universe for him is limited to the city he lives in.
Posted by: Blondin
|
June 9, 2010 10:47 AM
Especially if you are a non corporeal, ethereal entity and don't have to worry about getting injured, falling off, throwing up, etc.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
June 9, 2010 10:48 AM
@41
On the subject of "atheist regimes" Nonstampcollector has a video
Special Investigation - 20th century killers
Not as LOL hilarious as some of his other work, but it does a fairly good job of debunking these facile comparisons such as Donohue, et al, like to make. He covers Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.
BTW, for those who do not already know, the screen name comes from "not believing in God™ is a religion in exactly the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby."
Posted by: Michelle R
|
June 9, 2010 10:48 AM
@Christophe-thill: Well then, from the state of the gulf of mexico right now, I'd say our pivotal role in the universe SUCKS.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94
|
June 9, 2010 10:49 AM
Raven, are you a historian? Your points look like propaganda to me (which doesn't mean you don't have a point, e.g. about Bruno).
It seems to me that much of those translations were in fact made by christian monks and other church scholars, during those "dark ages". In fact, according to King, one of the important points of contact to get those arabic texts was "the holy land" during the crusades. (They were not at war all the time during these two centuries).
History is a science. As friends of of science, let us pay attention to what real historians say, as much as possible without bias and prejudice of our own. As much as we rather listen to Dawkins than to a historian or a phycist on the evolution of life on Earth.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 9, 2010 10:55 AM
*sigh*for the Xth time: the Dark Ages are not synonymous with the Medieval Period. The term only applies to the time between the fall of Rome and the rise of the Charles the Great, and only to Western Europe. The Eastern Roman Empire didn't have a dark age, despite being in the grip of a Christian church as well.
the term refers to a lack of documentation from that period, nothing else.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94
|
June 9, 2010 10:57 AM
And for someone knowing the theory of relativity, the "universe" might mean something much bigger yet: ALL of space AND time. What will happen to us and our ancestors until the end of time? Perhaps all of these stars and galaxies is just what "we" will need? The Creator is perhaps very, very wise.
A very (VERY!) long shot, I know. Just forget you read it, of you don't like it. Peace.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 9, 2010 10:59 AM
The impression I get is that the church (as well as the muslims during their "golden age") played an important role during the chaotic time after the fall of Rome, to transmit the important texts and findings by e.g. the ancient greeks to our time. - googlemess@27
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, that impression is largely wrong. The Eastern Roman Empire continued to exist after the fall of Rome to German invaders, and the east was where most of the Greek manuscripts that survived were. While the Catholic and Orthodox Churches did not formally split until the "Great Schism" of 1054, the Pope's influence was always limited in the Eastern empire: the Eastern emperor was the effective head of the church in the east. Many manuscripts in both east and west undoubtedly perished as the pagan temples where they were stored fell into decay or were actively destroyed. Many others were taken out of the Empire by persecuted Christian sects, notably the Nestorians, who preferred the more tolerant rule first of Zoroastrians, then of Muslims. This (as well as manuscripts in the parts of the Empire conquered by early Islam) was important in kick-starting Islamic science. Later (11th century) the main centres of Muslim science were conquered by (Muslim) fanatics who despised secular learning. In some times and places the Catholic Church did preserve or re-translate (from Arabic) important Greek works, but on the whole, its record is poor.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
June 9, 2010 11:01 AM
Sorry to just drop in after such a long absence, but Moggie (@wayupthere) wins the internetz:
ROFLMAO!
Posted by: ronsullivan
|
June 9, 2010 11:09 AM
# 46: It all depends on what we mean by "universe". For us, and for Hawking, the universe is a pretty big thing. On the other hand, for Donohue, I doubt it's something much bigger than the United States. It's very likely, actually, that the universe for him is limited to the city he lives in.
For Donahue, I'm pretty sure it's limited to his personal gravitational field.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 9, 2010 11:10 AM
What will happen to us and our ancestors until the end of time? Perhaps all of these stars and galaxies is just what "we" will need? The Creator is perhaps very, very wise.
A very (VERY!) long shot, I know. Just forget you read it, of you don't like it. Peace. - googlemess
Sorry, when I read stupid claptrap like this, I don't forget that the person writing it must be an idiot.
Posted by: conelrad
|
June 9, 2010 11:29 AM
He may have been alluding to the famous 'Omega Point' of Dr. Tipler, which seems likely in view of the curious verb tenses employed there.Posted by: Cactus Wren
|
June 9, 2010 11:29 AM
My guess would be that if we were to ask Donohue what humanity's "pivotal role in the universe" was, it would have something to do with the Incarnation.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
June 9, 2010 11:31 AM
MichelleR (@49):
Sadly, our "pivotal role" in the Gulf doesn't suck nearly as much as it needs to, but it really blows.
8^(
Posted by: raven
|
June 9, 2010 11:31 AM
No. That is why the points I made were what various historians have written.
Arguable. If history is a science, it is an imperfect science. Historians disagree a lot and often don't seem to come to any generally accepted conclusions. Which is not to say that it isn't important. Santayana, "Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."
We could save a lot of time, money, and lives by learning history. We just repeated the lessons of Vietnam in Iraq and almost repeated the lessons of Bushco by electing McCain and Palin. Morons and religious kooks don't make good presidents.
The points I made were what various historians have written including blaming the fall of the Roman Empire on the rise of xianity. I don't know enough history to critically evaluate those claims but the way history goes, maybe no one does.
Rather than claiming historians don't know history, why don't you do something constructive and address the points?
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 9, 2010 11:33 AM
you mean descendants. your ancestors are dead and have rotten away long ago. nothing else is going to happen to them.Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
June 9, 2010 11:35 AM
"What will happen to us and our ancestors until the end of time?"
I'm pretty sure we already know what happened to our ancestors... unless you're suggesting they invented time travel and plan on going into the future.
Posted by: scottknickelbine
|
June 9, 2010 11:36 AM
1) "While there are some religions which are devoid of reason. . ."
I wonder if Mr. Donohue would mind specifying which ones those are? Perhaps he would find it instructive be on the receiving end of the charge of religious bigotry.
2) Tipler's "Omega Point" theory, as interesting as it is, is pretty much shit-canned by the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down. Now the goal is to figure out a way for human intelligence to survive the Heat Death.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94
|
June 9, 2010 11:38 AM
Point taken, Knockgoats. I am an idiot.
Hate to admit it, but you actually hurt my feelings there.
Thanks anyway for your points on history. Cheers...
conelrad, an alternative explanation is that I am not a native english speaker. Although you are right actually. I did read Tipler's book on his "Omega point theory". Don't believe it though. For one thing, the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and not slowing down to a final contraction to a big crunch, as Tipler's theory predicts. What on earth (or elsewhere..) did the Creator intend with all of that dark matter and dark energy?
Posted by: Abelard
|
June 9, 2010 11:38 AM
What Donahue refers to is the rise of scholasticism in the 13th century that led to the formation of theological faculties and centres of learning throughout Western Europe, the universities. When he speaks of "reason" as the child of Catholicism, he refers not to critical thinking but to the wide and systematic organization of knowledge and knowledge-holders which medieval scholasticism engendered. Medieval scholars did not engage in scientific empiricism and hypothesis, activities which we now associate with scientific reasoning, and reasoning in general. (They were firmly Platonists) Instead, they were engaged in systematizing and rediscovering what knowledge they had. The only discipline in which medieval scholars can be said to engage in theory is theology, and this of course requires no empirical foundation.
To take one small example. In the early 13th century the Englishman John de Sacrobosco compiled a treatise on astronomical knowledge called the Tractatus de Sphaera. This compilation organized everything medieval scholars knew about the earth and its place in the universe. In terms of "reason" this was quite an accomplishment, since it had never been done before. John was a lecturer on astronomy at the University of Paris and so his treatise became the established textbook for astronomy. Unfortunately, because medieval scholars did not understand or practice scientific empiricism, the book remained unquestioned for nearly 400 years.
I have heard Donohue's apologetic many times from Catholic scholars (invariably from those who aren't historians of science). We do owe to our theological predecessors the birth of modern science, just as we owe to the original prehistoric inventor of fire the creation of jet-engines. The argument from tradition (and this is what this is) is a common one for the religious; but one wonders how anyone could claim to revere a lack of scientific empiricism.
Posted by: alareth
|
June 9, 2010 11:41 AM
Mr. Donohue, I will allow the honorable Mr. Yakko Warner supply a rebuttal:
It's a great big universe
And we're all really puny
We're just tiny little specks
About the size of Mickey Rooney.
It's big and black and inky
And we are small and dinky
It's a big universe and we're not.
~ Chorus from The Universe Song
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94
|
June 9, 2010 11:41 AM
"What will happen to us and our ancestors until the end of time?
you mean descendants. your ancestors are dead and have rotten away long ago. nothing else is going to happen to them."
LOL. And thanks. Did not see that. Sorry.
Posted by: natural cynic
|
June 9, 2010 11:46 AM
The word is solipsism. If Donohue hasn't heard about it, it didn't happen. If he weren't around to see Hubble pictures, they aren't there. If the human race didn't exist to glorify God then the billions of light years wide universe couldn't possibly exist. It's all so simple. Kind of like ID: since we are here in our cozy world, then it must have been made just for us.
pedant point @ #37:
The First Crusade started c 1096 CE. It occurred because of the restrictions of Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem. Which means that up until that time there were significant contacts between the Muslim and RC-controlled worlds. Of course there were lots of brutal contacts between the Muslims and Byzantines.
@ #51:
Which sort of proves the point. If there were no documentation, then that means that there was not a lot of transmission of human knowledge and advancement of thought going on.
Posted by: ereador
|
June 9, 2010 11:57 AM
Excellent post, PZ. This is something I have been trying to impress on my acquaintances for some time now.
Having studied the development of Catlick religious philosophy in some depth, I can safely agree that all their philosophy is an edifice built on sand.Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
June 9, 2010 12:00 PM
Donahue is right. Roman Catholicism has always had a special place for reason; that place is the torture chamber.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 9, 2010 12:00 PM
@Anubis Bloodsin the third
The acronyms are BCE(before common era) and CE(common era)
Not ACE.
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
June 9, 2010 12:01 PM
#26
Well, he once nearly ran me over in his wheelchair. And he was grinning.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 9, 2010 12:01 PM
not really, since 1)the gap has been filled in recent years, making the term archaic, and 2)christianity didn't seem to have had much of a negative effect on the knowledge of the eastern half of Europe.the Dark Ages existed for political reasons, i.e. the dissolution of all noticeable states and governments in the West. If you want to make the argument that Christianity caused the fall of the Roman empire, that's pretty much the only way to blame the Dark Ages on the religion.
Posted by: dahduh
|
June 9, 2010 12:03 PM
"Ergo, I am a moron."
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 9, 2010 12:09 PM
Ah, so his braying over MT must be just now winding its way to Georgia.
:D Actually, darkness may be more appropriate for that nun.
---
As you said, Aquaria. :) And besides, if they had divulged the truth about MT, they stood the risk of having Donkey-hole droppings aimed at them as well tomorrow.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94
|
June 9, 2010 12:11 PM
natural cynic
"Kind of like ID: since we are here in our cozy world, then it must have been made just for us."
Actually, there are atheists as well, who believe, one way or another, in the so called anthropic principle. One is the prominent string theorist Susskind, in his book "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design". The problem he is trying to understand is why the physical parameters of our universe seems to be so extremely fine tuned to make life possible. Especially dark energy, IF interpreted as the cosmological constant aka vacuum energy, which should naturally be about 10^120 times bigger than it is (and then the Big Crunch or the heat death would have happened in about one Planck time = 10^(-44) seconds or so...). Another possibility, which many hoped for before the discovery of dark energy, was that the vacuum energy was exactly zero, as it is in super symmetric models.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 9, 2010 12:16 PM
fine tuning is a fucking illusion. we don't actually know whether the universe we have is fine tuned to life, because the life we have is, obviously, fine tuned to the universe it's in.
Posted by: DangerousTalk.net
|
June 9, 2010 12:22 PM
Didn't Aristotle create the first University?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94
|
June 9, 2010 12:32 PM
@Jadehawk,
What kind of life are you imagining could have developed in 10^(-44) seconds? That if anything seems like a "fucking illusion" to me.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 9, 2010 12:35 PM
Yes, and the point being ...? Are you saying that if we don't consider "all of time" in our definition of the universe that the role of humanity becomes significant? Sorry, even if we go back to the pre-Hubble definition of the universe that was just the Milky Way galaxy, our role is still pretty insignificant. Even if you go further back to the universe just being the solar system, our role is still not "pivotal".
Are you suggesting that we might eventually use all of space before the end of time? Expansion of the universe alone makes that very unlikely irrespective of any conceivable technological "magic" that might make that possible.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
June 9, 2010 12:39 PM
Let's not forget the RCC's wonderful role in preserving pre-Christian European mythology and its valiant efforts to prevent the use of harmony in music and its opposition to the theory of evolution, which lasted into the 1950s at least. Just the sort of commitment to progress and verifiable truth that I would expect from an organization in which (officially) celibate men give out sex advice to women.
Also, what's the whole idea about the pivotal role of humanity in the universe? I thought that part of what religion was supposed to offer was a healthy dose of "wow, we're really small and insignificant compared to the beautiful vastness of the universe." Or did I misinterpret something in my years of Catholic education?
Posted by: TimmyC
|
June 9, 2010 12:41 PM
"The Catholic Church was a religion laced throughout the substrate of Western culture; everyone was Catholic (or alternatively, after the 16th century, some flavor of Protestant), and being anything else was not tenable because the Catholic Church would set you on fire."
Wow, you are brilliant and subtle historian.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 9, 2010 12:42 PM
You're suggesting that is the only alternative universe to this one? Wow. What color of clown shoes do you wear to work?Posted by: Whiskyjack
|
June 9, 2010 12:42 PM
There were no universities in Europe prior to the 11th century because the older institutions of learning had been closed by the Emperor Justinian in 529 as part of his campaign to suppress paganism.
Posted by: mistereveready
|
June 9, 2010 12:44 PM
wait, donohue thinks soviet union and germany happened because of science w/o faith? last i checked those things happened because of faith. the manipulation of the trust of the people and fanaticism of their government and religions.
if he meant science w/o empathy for others and concern for the environment, then yes, the usage of scientific knowledge can be EXTREMELY dangerous. if he means dangerous w/o a voyeuristic, schizophrenic, asshole of a sky daddy, then he is an absolute retard.
though, i've already come to the conclusion that donoue's mother must have had her lines mixed during birth, because he's a fucking shithead retard.
donohue should be slang for to describe a person lacks understanding in anything but bombastically displays his stupidity. basically synonym to religitard.
he deserves an open hand slap that then turns into a face palm. because that much stupid deserves a reward.
Posted by: Timothy
|
June 9, 2010 12:48 PM
Hey, steady now, PZizzle! What did sewage ever do to you to draw such an unfair comparison?
Posted by: shjcpr
|
June 9, 2010 12:48 PM
PZ, you're just pissed those idiot folks who just so happened to appear to be acting rationally (but in truth are just fakin' it) had the gall to come up with the idea of science to tackle the perenially hard task of confirming God empirically.
Now you(pl) are crashing the party, squatting on theistic territory, put your oversized Viking hat on, grog in hand, and blurting (after the burp)
"Har, har! Listen ye, this is atheist territory NOW!
ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 9, 2010 12:53 PM
The problem he is trying to understand is why the physical parameters of our universe seems to be so extremely fine tuned to make life possible. Especially dark energy, IF interpreted as the cosmological constant aka vacuum energy, which should naturally be about 10^120 times bigger than it is (and then the Big Crunch or the heat death would have happened in about one Planck time = 10^(-44) seconds or so...). - googlemess idiot
1) Uranium couldn't have developed in such a universe either. So clearly, the universe was fine-tuned to make uranium possible. Life? Just an unplanned byproduct.
2) Whatever the degree of "fine tuning" necessary to the development of life, it clearly needed to be far more finely-tuned to allow me to exist, since almost all the possible universe that include life don't include me. Therefore, the universe was fine-tuned to make me possible.
Posted by: dynamicuno
|
June 9, 2010 12:54 PM
That we - living creatures - should be surprised that the environment in which we - living creatures - find ourselves living features precisely the right conditions for us - living creatures - to be alive is itself a surprise. The problem arises from a frequent misstatement. People will say "if the universe had different initial values, by even the most miniscule fraction, life would be impossible!"
What they SHOULD be saying is "if the universe had different initial values, by even the most miniscule fraction, HUMAN life would be impossible!" Would other life arise in those conditions? Who knows. But if it didn't, there would be nobody there to question.
This makes the "fine tuning" argument essentially worthless.
Posted by: molto legato e sostenuto
|
June 9, 2010 12:58 PM
PZ:
Donohue basically says "reason is our special thing, you wouldn't have Western science and progress without us". Aside from the fact that this is bullshit, without delving too much into history, or the logical fallacy (it's like saying, if Marie Curie had never been born, we never would have discovered radium) I find it easy to frame it this way: Just because the Soviet Union produced good things which helped topple the edifice, perestroika and glasnost, that doesn't make Marxism true or virtuous.
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
June 9, 2010 12:59 PM
Oh, I like that one.Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 9, 2010 1:05 PM
Even if that correction were made, the larger point is that the fact that life exists (human or otherwise) is not evidence that life was intended to exist. If the initial conditions of the universe had been different to a degree that resulted in a universe that does not permit the existence of life, then there would be a universe without life. So what? The conditions in my pantry were right for ants a couple months ago. Doesn't mean my pantry was designed for ants. Now it does not have ants in it. But that's not because my pantry was designed to prevent ants. The presence or absence of ants in my pantry is not the result of a purposeful decision by an intelligent pantry-maker. (for the time being, it has more to do with chemicals, but that's another story)Posted by: crookedshoes
|
June 9, 2010 1:06 PM
i love the divine knob twiddler idea.... very anthrocentric! reminds me of the puddle thinking the pothole was made especially for it (Douglas Adams)...
Posted by: raven
|
June 9, 2010 1:15 PM
The Creator is perhaps very, very wise.
What Creator? The invisible, undetectable sky fairy that no one can prove (or disprove) exists?
Before you claim that the vast universe was created for us by Yahweh, you have to prove that Yahweh even exists.
Suppose it was really created by Yehwah, a god whose chosen creatures are squidlike creatures swimming in methane seas 5 million light years away? Yehwah cares passionately about its cryogenic squids, especially their sex lives. When they get here someday, Yehwah will make sure we are genocided if we get in the way while the methane swimmers proceed to own the entire universe.
If people are going to believe in fairy tales, one fairy tale is as true as another.
Posted by: pccdrski
|
June 9, 2010 1:16 PM
Two millennia of reason and scientific encouragement?
I'm sure Copernicus and Galilei and Brae would like hear how that worked out. The mendacity is truly gobsmack worthy!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
June 9, 2010 1:25 PM
"Sure, science arose out of Catholicism…in the same sense that plumbing, sanitation systems, and public health policies arose out of sewage."
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHEHHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHEHEEHe!!!!!
uncle frogy
Posted by: irenedelse
|
June 9, 2010 1:35 PM
@Westcoaster #19:
Bill Donohue in the TPV? Now, that would be a spectacle worth a few eons in purgatory.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
June 9, 2010 1:39 PM
Google @27
Uh, no.
The Early Christian sects in the persecution of the Hellenics burned many of their centers of learning and libraries as "heretical works". They are pretty much directly responsible for the retained works being as sparse as they are today.
Furthermore, while they may have "retained" some books into the modern day, their refusal to use them or allow them to be made public lead them to be poorly utilized. Indeed, it wasn't until greek texts started resurfacing for audiences beside the clergy, did we see the huge revolutions in technologies seen in the Age of Exploration and the Rennaissance.
I'm not entirely sure I want to give them credit for burning down the vast majority of works and confiscating the slim remainder because some of the slim remainder ended up being in unused Church hands in later centuries.
That'd be like thanking a man who robbed and burned down my home for selling a couple of my books to a nearby Pawn Shop...that I'll find in 20 years time.
On Donohue's ramblings:
He'd have to define university fairly narrowly to at all claim a catholic origin. Not only the Chinese, Buddhist, and Hindu academies and universities, but also the academies all over Greece and Rome, including Pythagoras's which was the first to allow both genders to attend.
And also there was that whole huge Academy connected to the Library of Alexandria which was for all given purposes akin to a small-scale modern university. That of which wasn't burned down by the Romans or the early Christians, was sacked by the Muslim invaders in the 7th century.
In short, fuck the Church who set back thinking nearly two full millenium because of their treatment of the old greek and arab texts and who have regularly attempted to stifle any scientific advancement since.
A few good apples in a pig trough does not a meal make.
Posted by: raven
|
June 9, 2010 1:44 PM
I assume TimmyC is being sarcastic.
If so, he is also wrong as well as the statement that not being a Catholic would result in being "set on fire."
The Catholic church would also occasionally hang heretics, apostates, and atheists. What has caused the decline of the xian religions is well known. They have lost the power of the gun, noose, and stacks of firewood because people got tired of killing and being killed. Without the ability to use lethal force, belief faltered and is dying.
If god is so all powerful, why does he need homicidal followers to make people believe in him?
Posted by: Foggg
|
June 9, 2010 1:53 PM
The Index Librorum Prohibitorum also banned Kepler, Francis Bacon (the 'father of modern science'), numerous protestant scientists (e.g. botanists) for the crime of being protestant, snd important science oriented philosophers like Hume and Descartes. Darwin was never banned, but a number of works attempting to present evolution as acceptable/reconcilable with catholic dogma were banned.
Posted by: robinsrule
|
June 9, 2010 1:53 PM
Establish that this Creator of yours exists first, then we can discuss its wisdom.
By that logic the Catholic church should be at the forefront of scientific research, instead of fighting against it.
Posted by: Medas2005
|
June 9, 2010 1:55 PM
When I talk to my former roommate who is now a church pastor, he tells me that we are foolish to think that mankind could actually affect the climate. That is considered vanity where we think that can do only as God can do. I do know that if we poke a hole in the floor of the ocean that oil will continue to come out according to the natural law of physics. We seem pretty unable to do much about that as well. I give nature the nod on this one. We are helpless to do much of anything on our one planet that we influence.
Posted by: edhensley
|
June 9, 2010 2:02 PM
Mark Twain from Europe and Elsewhere and A Pen Warmed Up In Hell. What he says about the church and slavery is also true about the church and science.
Posted by: crookedshoes
|
June 9, 2010 2:06 PM
Hey Medas,
What about when WE POKE the hole in the bottom of the ocean and oil pours out of it? Your point that we can do nothing to stop the oil kinda obscures the point that WE CAUSED THE SPILL in the first place. Please do not "give nature the nod" and start rationally thinking about what impact (reversible and irreversible) we have on "the one planet we influence"... We could stop poking holes (yes the oil follows the natural law of physics) and start THINKING. If we detonate nuclear weapons and wipe the slate clean will you say "hey atoms are natural and when they explode they unleash lots of natural energy"? We have the unprecedented ability to control (or at least minimize) our impact on this "only" planet...why not strive to do exactly that?
Posted by: Scorpy1
|
June 9, 2010 2:08 PM
It works the better the other way, I think.
Godzilla is an enraged, enormously overweight monster of a living being that can't walk down the street without wanting to smash something.
Bambi is innocent, a quick thinker and concerned for the continued survival of his fellow beings.
If they got in a fight, Bambi could easily escape that big Butterfinger's clutches.
Posted by: Denis Loubet
|
June 9, 2010 2:14 PM
Of course we play the absolute pivotal role in the universe! None of the universe would exist if not for us observing things and collapsing the waveforms. It would all be a bunch of superimposed probabilities, a Schrodinger's Universe if you will, if not for us observers.
.
.
.
(No, I'm not serious. But the idea made for a cool Greg Egan novel.)
Posted by: robinsrule
|
June 9, 2010 2:22 PM
@Medas2005:
He's wrong. The change in temperatures seen when the pollution from airline traffic was halted after the 9-11 attacks puts that idea to rest.
Posted by: raven
|
June 9, 2010 2:22 PM
So. You former roommate the Pastor is an idiot and demonstrably factually wrong.
With 6.7 billion energy using humans on the planet we can and have made enormous changes to the planet within my lifetime.
Roughly half of all fossil fuels on the planet have been dug up or drilled up and are gone.
We have driven who knows how many species to extinction and the list of those on the brink gets longer every year. And we are changing the climate and have been for thousands of years. It is estimated that 1/2 of all terrestrial matter moved about on the planet is done by humans, much of that with machines.
Lately, we have resurrected two extinct life forms, one of which, the Phoenix human retrovirus had been extinct for 5 million years. That is two more than the xians can prove were resurrected. And the creationists used to taunt scientists about how, if they were so smart, why can't they create life. They don't do that anymore. Because Craig Venter just did.
They have moved the goal posts so that now it is to recreate the Big Bang. They better hope science has some limits or that would be the last experiment for another 13.7 billion years.
The time is approaching when people will say god is playing Craig Venter and soon enough, people will say god is playing "human".
Posted by: Ewan R
|
June 9, 2010 2:23 PM
Strikes one, two and three.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
June 9, 2010 2:25 PM
Ok, lets get down to the heart of Bill's issue here. He says that;
But this is not about the rationality or otherwise of religion, or even the relative significance of the human species. This is about the relative significance of Bill Donohue.
Um... I don't know how to break this too you Bill, but we humans are, when viewed alongside the vastness of the universe, supremely irrelevant.
Now, sit down Bill, this next bit will be really difficult for you to hear.... You are, contrary to all indications provided by your super-human capacity to be a bigoted moron, part of the human species (as much as it pains me to admit that I share any genes in common with you). This means that you, Bill Donohue, are also supremely irrelevant on the scale of the universe. If you were to die right now, nothing much would change (apart from weeping and gnashing of teeth from your brain-dead supporters and wild celebrating in the streets by rationalists everywhere). The stars would still burn and the planets would still turn. There is no celestial Hugh Heffner to send you to a Playboy Mansion in the sky, and if there is some kind of supreme entity somewhere in the universe (which is doubtful, to say the very least) she/he/it/they most probably are not even aware that we exist (yes, not even you Bill), and if they were aware of us would likely not care very much about a species of primitive, psychotic apes (yes, we are a species of ape, Bill. Just get used to it).
I am being cruel to be kind here...
What? Somebody had to tell him...
Posted by: Perspexo
|
June 9, 2010 2:42 PM
@Raven
I must say I like the cut of this Yehwah's gib. All hail our cyrogenic space squid overlords!
Posted by: CJO
|
June 9, 2010 2:50 PM
History is a science.
It is nothing of the sort. All use of historical sources requires interpretation in a way that data collected using quantitative methods simply does not.* The best work in history can and should certainly be informed by any relevant science, primarily archaeology and other branches of anthropology, along with dating techniques. But history itself, as a discipline, is rightly classified among the humanities, and it does the field no service to make these kinds of grandiose claims about it.
*This isn't to say something naive, like "facts speak for themselves," or that quantitative data about the natural world require no interpretation, it is merely to say that quantified, repeatable observations are not possible when referring to written sources, which are necessarily unique and subject to bias and ambiguity.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94
|
June 9, 2010 2:54 PM
@SteveM
Are you suggesting that we might eventually use all of space before the end of time? Expansion of the universe alone makes that very unlikely irrespective of any conceivable technological "magic" that might make that possible.
Yes, that is exactly what I was suggesting. Using the important little word "perhaps". You know like in brainstorming, or trying to be poetic like when Hawking talks about the "mind of God", or like in a gedanken experiment, or like in thinking about a possible plot for an SF novel, or like just trying to be funny. Or perhaps because I actually am dead serious about it. I will not tell...
Though one might think a little about where we are going IF (should perhaps maked that an IF) the exponetial growth of our economy and technology contiues like this for a while, because there are so many smart people around.
Posted by: Tulse
|
June 9, 2010 3:25 PM
...which also use data that are "unique", in terms of being historically contingent, and thus are not repeatable observations. Even astronomy and evolutionary biology involve historically contingent data, yet we generally feel comfortable calling them "sciences".
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 9, 2010 3:25 PM
Hawking: "Science works."
Donohue: "Herp de derp!"
"It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities, and it was the Catholic Church that played a central role in the Scientific Revolution; these two historical contributions made possible Mr. Hawking's career. "
GOD: Surely the creation cannot make demands of the creator!
JESSE CUSTER: Then the creator shouldn't piss on his creation.
Book of Ennis, um, not at home right now so I can't look up the chapter and verse.
Posted by: thebigreason.myopenid.com
|
June 9, 2010 3:51 PM
You are on fucking fire, sir! This is the most insightfully hilarious piece I've read all year. It should be printed and framed.
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
June 9, 2010 4:00 PM
That's why the RCC put Galileo under house arrest and rejected Copernicus heliocenteric theory not to mention book-burning rutuals. Remember, it also opposed the study of anatomy.Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 9, 2010 4:10 PM
Bill Donohue rants that the Empire State building will light up with red and green for Christmas, green for St. Patrick's Day, and has honored the deaths of Pope John-Paul and Cardinal O'Connor with appropriate lighting but the ESB is anti-Catholic because it won't honor Mother Theresa.
Hmmmm, I guess Bill's degree must be from a Catholic institution of higher learning. Where else could one learn to think so convolutely?
Posted by: CJO
|
June 9, 2010 4:13 PM
Tulse,
...which also use data that are "unique", in terms of being historically contingent, and thus are not repeatable observations. Even astronomy and evolutionary biology involve historically contingent data, yet we generally feel comfortable calling them "sciences".
Well, archaeological data may be unique, but they are quantifiable, and thus not prone to the kind of ambiguity that written historical sources are. That a given shard of pottery was found at a given site in a given layer, in association with a discrete set of other artifacts, in a soil of a given type and composition, and can be dated using independent empirical methods; none of this requires interpretation to be considered facts by other archaeologists. The interpretation begins at such a baseline in the sciences, whereas necessarily subjective interpretation of written sources for historical study informs any determination just of what the basic facts of the matter are. I'm finding the distinction a little harder to articulate than I would like, but I don't get the sense that you disagree... or do you think history should be considered a science?
As for observational ("historical") sciences like Evolutionary Biology and Astronomy, what it's not possible to do are controlled repeatable experiments, which limitation people like creationists naively exploit to claim these are not sciences. But, as these are observational sciences, the observations are repeatable, and the quantitative analysis of the observational data is transparent in a way that the necessarily subjective analysis of the import of a written source cannot be.
Posted by: Mark85
|
June 9, 2010 4:22 PM
What passes for science in the Catholic Church is worshiping old bones and old pieces of wood that supposedly came from the cross. it's never been a real religion, it's always been nothing more than a political organization looking to gain power for itself. Read a good novel about this church called On This Rock by Dave Leonard and see if you could ever think of it as a serious religion again.
Posted by: Tulse
|
June 9, 2010 4:34 PM
CJO, I think you're placing too much weight on the notion of "observable" and "quantifiable". Certainly written records are "observable", and there is plenty of history that is "quantifiable" with the appropriate metric, even in mere written records.
I think the distinction between "science" and other academic approaches to understanding the world are not necessarily always clear. It is certainly true that there are ways of approaching history that are primarily driven by the practitioner's politics or grand theory or particular bias, and that such history relies largely on interpretation. But I don't think that history per se is necessarily antithetical to the gathering of objectively observable data and the formation and testing of theories based on said data, so I have a hard time ruling it out of science a priori.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 9, 2010 4:35 PM
Well, archaeological data may be unique, but they are quantifiable, and thus not prone to the kind of ambiguity that written historical sources are.
Venus figurines.
Posted by: raven
|
June 9, 2010 4:40 PM
Evolutionary biology is a historical science but also very much an experimental one.
The number of experiments done in evolutionary biology is unknown but huge. Dump some bacteria on a plate with antibiotics and viola, in a few days a few drug resistant colonies appear. Treat a population with an anti-anything and sooner or later, drug resistant pathogens. Zap a metastatic cancer patient with radiation and quite often, you evolve a radiation resistant form. Lenski is the latest in a long, long line of microbial experimental evolutionists.
Then there are the meso scale evolutionary experiments where multi hectare areas are turned into giant test tubes. Scientists have tested sexual selection of elaborate bird tails by cutting them off and/or glueing on avian tail wigs. Then there are the natural experiments. Invasive species. A prediction of evolution is that new diseases can emerge and infect new niches. Wait a while. We've seen swine flu, AIDS, SARS, avian flu, and there will be another one sooner or later. Not to mention agricultural uses and problems.
Astronomy might be considered a true observational science. So far. We don't do experiments on interplanetary or interstellar scales yet.
Posted by: natural cynic
|
June 9, 2010 4:55 PM
I think that Donohue being squished would be more like the lovely fart-like sound that is made as the Monty Python foot does its thing. Terminal loss of hot air.
Posted by: Tulse
|
June 9, 2010 5:00 PM
True, but only for non-historical claims, and thus generally not for accounts of pre-existing specific, real-world features of organisms. For example, given what we know of evolution (including what has been learned through experiment) it is a completely reasonable inference to make that Darwin's finches developed their different beak forms due to selection pressure for different food sources. But that is a historical inference, and isn't something that we can (easily) demonstrate with experiments on finches.
In other words, experiments can reveal the mechanisms of evolution, but they cannot directly answer questions about what happened in the past (just as experiments in geology can uncover the chemistry of rock formations and the likely mechanisms that cause their formation, but can't directly answer questions about specific formations).
The specifics of the contingent past are generally not amenable to experimentation. Sciences like physics and chemistry don't (generally) concern themselves with contingent, historically-influenced entities, and so this isn't a problem for them. But for many of the other sciences, historical contingency can play an important role in the current state of the entities under study, and in those cases we can't do direct experiments to answer these historical questions.
Posted by: Derek
|
June 9, 2010 5:58 PM
I have one word for Mr. Donohue - Galileo. I could say a lot more, but that should suffice.
Posted by: CJO
|
June 9, 2010 6:12 PM
Re: subjectivity in archaeology and the example of Neolithic figurines (or, for that matter, so-called Achulean handaxes):
Yes, sure. But a figurine isn't a datum, it's a unique object. The data are things like where it was found, in what context, of what it is made, with what tools, where the material came from, etc.
What it meant to its maker or to those for whom it was made, or what something was for, in the case of utilitarian artifacts, these are more subjective, and more like the questions that inform historical reconstructions of past events.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 9, 2010 6:17 PM
To quote Stephen Hawking: "It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty."Given the size and age of the universe, it's amazing that anyone could think that we are a significant part of it. Unless Donohue is a geocentrist YEC of course... then delusion is par for course.
Posted by: raven
|
June 9, 2010 6:26 PM
Not a good example. There are a lot of data being generated at this very moment on the evolution of beaks in Darwin's finches on the Galapogos islands. They are still evolving and in real time. Evolution hasn't stopped by any means, it is an ongoing process and what we see is just a snapshot in time.
This isn't true and it is irrelevant and trivial. We can look at a rock and say it was produced by an ancient volcano. Even if it is a hundred million years old. Because we can stand around today and watch volcanos erupt and produce the same type of rocks.
We can't do experiments on the past. But so what. We can learn a huge amount by watching the present turn into the past, a continuous process happening nanosecond by nanosecond.
Posted by: raven
|
June 9, 2010 6:34 PM
The theory of evolution is about how and why life changes through time. It is a mechanistic theory and very much an experimental one.
Evolution is also a fact. That life changed through time. This is the historical part. We can't do experiments back in time. But we don't need to go back in time to collect a large number of observable facts.
Posted by: cody.cameron
|
June 9, 2010 7:17 PM
Who was it that said without religion we might have had internet in the 1600s...? Sam Harris maybe? Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo--how many geniuses have they killed in the name of jesus?
On the other hand, sexually abusing so many people for so long is bound to have "inspired" a lot of victims to bury themselves deep in their work, no doubt that over the centuries at least a few have made significant contributions to science.
Hey, all I'm saying is that Mendel was probably only obsessed with peas to keep his mind distracted from whoever the equivalent of pedophile priest Oliver O'Grady was in 1830.
(I'm actually stealing this from a vague recollection of a Mr. Show sketch. "My father touched my bunghole, and that's why I'm on the penny!" ~Abraham Lincoln.)
Posted by: symmetric
|
June 9, 2010 11:45 PM
Sure, science arose out of Catholicism…in the same sense that plumbing, sanitation systems, and public health policies arose out of sewage.
Hah! I want this on a bumper sticker :)
Posted by: BoxNDox
|
June 10, 2010 12:00 AM
And here I was hoping they'd evolve to the point where they could play a little Paganini.
It's been a bad day and I couldn't resist; sorry.
Posted by: DLC
|
June 10, 2010 12:43 AM
Science predates Catholicism by the virtue of predating Christ. Yes, Bill, reason was given a special place in Catholicism -- as long as your reasoning lead to conclusions approved by the RCC!
Reasoning not so approved was grounds for being burned at the stake. Oh, and Bill, as long as we're reasoning . . . what was the rationale behind Pope Theophilus of Alexandria's ordering the burning of the Library of Alexandria, again ?
Posted by: amphiox
|
June 10, 2010 12:56 AM
Well, there have definitely been episodes in which the Catholic church, convinced on faith alone that theirs was the One "True" Faith, promoted science and reason, certain that results would bolster their beliefs and add yet another layer onto the veneer of legitimacy that underpinned their power over the masses, and all their wealth.
Other religions have also had similar episodes.
They all changed their tunes mighty quick when the inevitable contradictory results starting pouring in.
Posted by: bassmanpete
|
June 10, 2010 2:06 AM
But of course we play a pivotal role in the universe - it was created just for us you dummies! /sarcasm
Apologies if anyone has already said this but I didn't have time to read all 135 comments that had been left before I came to this thread.
Posted by: Escuerd
|
June 10, 2010 2:56 AM
It was understanding something about our insignificance and the scale of the universe we live in that first made the idea of an anthropomorphic deity seem ridiculous. That Donohue thinks humanity plays such a "pivotal role" in the universe just reinforces my prior assessment that he's a pretty dim bulb.
Posted by: molto legato e sostenuto
|
June 10, 2010 4:07 AM
@raven #108
Halfway there.
It will be possible to do, but you wouldn't notice it, according to Laurence Krauss.Posted by: molto legato e sostenuto
|
June 10, 2010 4:14 AM
@BoxNDox #133: Indeed. Voilà, a viola!
Posted by: commodianus
|
June 10, 2010 4:22 AM
Galileo is an affair that while wrong handling certainly occurred, much misconception exists as popular opinion which then gets spread around as if it were fact.
Let's just sweep under the rug the facts of the events, give a sweeping generalization and claim the Church was the enemy of science, when in fact, it was science, and the scientific method employed by the Church to question what Galileo could not demonstrate. Let's not bring up that Galileo used oceanic waves as proof for the Earth's motion, and let's not bring up that he could not explain the lack of a parallax effect (among other things I guarantee most of the people whining about the Church are completely ignorant about).
Let's ignore his warm reception and the total enthusiasm within the Church for his theories. Let's pretend that it wasn't him declaring his scriptural interpretations as authoritative that caused the problems (heresy), further his immature and erroneous attempts at painting the Church as villains.
Let's ignore that among Jesuits especially, Copernican theory before him had found the favor that he also enjoyed.
Ok wait I have a better idea, everyone read an objective book on the subject by someone not overly fond of the Church, who is not Catholic, to get some semblance of reality, it's called "The Crime of Galileo" by Giorgio de Santillana.
If you really consider yourself an intellectual do yourself a favor and read this book. I'm really tired of popular misconception, this far back in history being used as the one stock attack on the Church.
Now why don't you consider the author of the Big Bang theory, Msgr. Georges Lemaitre, if he had a problem with Galilean theory.
If anyone needs a couple more profound examples of the Church's relationship advancing science, by all means, count how many craters on the moon are named for their Jesuits discoverers and then send me a message and we'll get serious.
fides et ratio
Posted by: witterson
|
June 10, 2010 5:14 AM
When Stephen Hawking goes to hell for what he said, will he still be a robot?
One sickening inevitable thing is that once Hawking dies (I imagine the Windows Shutdown sound to be his death rattle), his bones will be gnawed over by Donohues lauding him as a great man of religion. Within a year, your aunt will forward you and a million others chain emails that deathbed_conversion.txt was found on his laptop by a christian woman who was just dandering about his house or that the devil possessed Microsoft Sam momentarily when these statements were made.
Mark my words, some anecdote about a young bright kid schooling a cocky godless liberal will end with the words "...and that boy grew up to be Stephen Hawking the crimefighting Christ-droid."
I have run out of terrible Hawking quips, good day.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 10, 2010 6:18 AM
Commodianus #140,
Does this look like an enemy of science to you?:
Posted by: theswede
|
June 10, 2010 8:44 AM
@commodianus
If anyone needs a couple more profound examples of the Church's relationship advancing science
Sure. Let's start with the Church's stance on condoms and AIDS. Then we can go on to the validity of carbon 14 dating on the shroud of Turin.
As to Galileo, what matters is that he was forced to back down on his scientific hypothesis on pain of being burned at the stake. It doesn't matter what other "crimes" he had committed (as if having a different opinion of the meaning of bronze age texts can reasonably be considered a "crime"). Are you arguing this is in question? Are you arguing the Church should be forgiven and treated as science friendly because he was really convicted for expressing his opinion?
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 10, 2010 9:41 AM
@commodianus the Catholic apologist and liar (but I repeat myself),
"But to affirm that the Sun is really fixed in the center of the heavens and that the Earth revolves very swiftly around the Sun is a dangerous thing, not only irritating the theologians and philosophers, but injuring our holy faith and making the sacred scriptures false."
Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and the foremost Vatican theologian of the seventeeth century.
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both psychologically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith."
Formal Church declaration in its indictment of Galileo
"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, during the trial of Galileo, 1615
(Well, I must admit he got that one right!)
"Because I have been enjoined, by this Holy Office, to abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the center and immovable, ...I abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies...contrary to the said Holy Church."
Galileo Galilei, recanting under threat of torture and death by the Holy Church, June 22, 1633
Of course, even if it were true that it was for entirely non-scientific "crimes" that Galileo was sentenced to lifelong house arrest and threatened with torture, that would not make the RCC any less vile. Similarly with the apologias for the torture and burning alive of Giordino Bruno.
Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems remained on the list of books Catholics were forbidden to read, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum until 1832. Kepler's Epitome astronomiae Copernicianae was on it until 1835. Other notable scientists whose works were included at least in part are Copernicus, d'Alambert and Erasmus Darwin, as were some or all of those of the notable philosophers Spinoza, Hobbes, J.S. Mill, Kant, Bentham, Berkeley, Bergson, Comte, Hume, Locke. Of course the very existence of such a list proves the RCC's intense hostility to freedom of thought - after all, once people start thinking for themselves, the ludicrous garbage promulgated by the Church is increasingly likely to be seen as such.
It is true that the RCC has been less anti-evolutionary that Protestant fundamentalists, but it has repeatedly claimed that humanity arose from a single pair (this is shown to be false by genetic evidence, but is obviously required for the evil doctrine of "original sin" to make sense), and that the female of this pair was created from the male. Even in 2004, the statement of the International Theological Commission included the following:
"A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted."
This is a bare-faced lie: there is no scientific debate on alleged "evidence of design". In particular, "specified complexity" is a piece of meaningless verbiage invented by the IDiot William Dembski.
Posted by: robinsrule
|
June 10, 2010 10:40 AM
@commodianus:
It was Galileo's desire to avoid the church's "warm" and no-doubt enthusiastic "reception" that led to his recanting.
Simple question: where is the church's scientific evidence that a god exists?
Posted by: raven
|
June 10, 2010 10:49 AM
Let's all ignore that commodianus is a troll posting a long string of lies and fallacies to defend the horrible and evil.
Even today, there are plenty of Catholic apologists who will explain in great seriousness why it was the right thing to burn Giordano Bruno at the stake. He is still considered a heretic by the RCC and they have never apologized for what they did.
There is only one thing preventing at least some elements in the RCC from burning heretics, apostates, and witches at the stake again. People got tired of killing and being killed and took away their armies, weapons, and judicial powers.
Posted by: raven
|
June 10, 2010 11:05 AM
An example of wacko religious kook thinking. So Galileo was wrong about a few facts about the natural world. How and why is this a death penalty offense?
It's not. There isn't a scientist today that wasn't wrong at some point about something, including myself. We've all seen a cherished theory slain by an ugly fact.
In point of fact, waves are caused by winds and part of the wind is created and guided by the earth's rotation. That is why in the northern hemisphere, the jet stream and prevailing winds are west to east.
And parallax to nearby interplanetary and interstellar objects exists and was used to determine their distance. Galileo didn't have the instruments and time to measure small amounts of parallax. Which is no reason to burn him at the stake.
Posted by: crookedshoes
|
June 10, 2010 12:14 PM
The thing I personally find most odious is not that commodianus' wants to defend the church. Not that he wants me to read a book (gladly)....Not that he has an opinion about a muddy historical occurrence that may have different interpretations centuries after it happened. The thing that is most odious: the way it is just matter of fact that people were being BURNED ALIVE. FUCKING BURNED ALIVE!!!!! I mean what kind of absolute asshole do you have to be to sit and argue the relative merits of a point of view when people were being burned alive for their points of view. Sorry, buddy, but any group of people that is capable of burning someone alive is not a group I want to be in nor a group i want to hear from. So, clean up your own yard before you tell me to clean up mine.
I thank knockgoats et al for hitting the researchable educated points... I just wanted to put a HUMAN point into play. THEY FUCKING BURNED PEOPLE AT THE STAKE. Imagine, commodiANUS, your child being burned in the town square for the crime of THINKING. AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL and you would gladly let it happen again.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94
|
June 10, 2010 3:45 PM
KOPD
You are not a physicist, are you? I am. PhD. Anyway, when you know the scale of of a problem, that actually implies a lot. Like that typical nuclear energies are MeV, while typical chemical energies are eV, i.e. one million times less. For most physicist that fact alone is enough to be quite sceptical about "cold fusion".
Well, the likely value for vacuum energy is about one Planck energy per Planck volume. That is the natural scale one would expect from quantum field theory involving gravity. It is just that the measured value (i.e. of dark energy) is 10^(-120) smaller. The worst prediction ever by any physical theory!
Of course it is also possible that this scale is more like a standard deviation around zero. But that doesn't really solve anything. If the natural scale is 1 unit, we would thus expekt anyting in the interval between +/- a few units, like 1.0, -1.5, pi/4, or -.33, etc, etc.
Or 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001.
Just like the other numbers, right? NO...
Anyway, Susskind has a perfectly non-religious idea about how to understand this. Pretty much like an intelligent fish may figure out why the observable part of his world is so perfectly fine-tuned for fish: There are other planets! Most dead without water and so on, but then at least one where fish could exist.
Well. There may be other universes in the "multiverse"! Like 10^500 or so, Susskind estimates from string theory. With so many, more or less evenly spread out in the parameter space, 10^(-120) is not that remarkable anymore.
Elegant in a way, though I do feel a little disturbed by the christian monk William of Occam on this. 10^500 universes to explain ours?? OK, OK, that is perhaps not the proper use of Occam's razor. Anyway, its just a feeling I have.
Posted by: commodianus
|
June 11, 2010 10:37 AM
crookedshoes:
Asserting I would "let it happen again" is simply baseless. However we cannot assign the guilt of everyone involved in the events you mentioned solely on the Church, certainly not the whole Church, and certainly not the Church of today, any more than you can heckle me for belonging to a nation that's murdered millions, stolen land from natives, condoned slavery and so on. However horrendous the acts of men in the Church throughout history, the good done is swept aside and this I will not accept. I again implore you to read the book.
raven:
I understand that punishment can hardly match the crime when you do not consider it a crime, though it would be intellectually honest for you to concede that while society changes, it makes the laws and that modern society has hardly advanced beyond the oppression of thought (cf. Germany in 2010).
My suggestion here is to point out to those who hold the law as their standard of morality, to consider what the law of the time was.
robinsule:
You're asking me for contingent proof of a none contingent. This is a straw man.
Knockgoats:
It is clear that you are using Pavlovian programmed popular regurgitations. It would in fact serve you to read the book I mentioned, where Bellarmine is discussed in great detail.
It is not as if Galileo and the rest of the world had the truth and the Church was throwing a tantrum because it was losing control (which is so often popular opinion).
Secular scientists of the time were no less guilty of holding the position that the Church did (which is to say that it was a theory until proven otherwise).
Further the argument cannot be made that Galileo, who was not a theologian, had the right to claim authoritative interpretation regarding the Scriptures of the Church. This is still heresy.
aratina cage:
I'm sorry you accept the New York times as an accurate (and not superficial) portrayer of history. Have we learned nothing from Marueen Dowd?
Again I would paraphrase what I said at the beginning of my original comment. Men make mistakes, some men make horrible mistakes, some men have made them while part of the Church, some men have made them while not members of the Church. My suggestion at reading "the Crime of Galileo" is not to convince the world that the Church acted 100% correctly in the matter, but to dispel common misconception and grant comprehension of the events which is quite obviously lacking to anyone familiar with the specifics. It won't convince you to believe in God, to be Catholic or to love the Church. It will give you facts though.
theswede:
I'm with the CDC on the most effective way to stop the spread of HIV/AID/STDs.
See "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel", Paragraph 3.
Further, you'd be hard pressed to blame the Church for the AIDs plague in Washington DC. I'd be curious if you could explain how the AIDS epidemic in Washington DC relates to:
1. The unavailability of condoms in DC (they are readily available)
2. Illiteracy rates compared to South Africa (these rates do not even come CLOSE to Africa)
The reported adult literacy rate in south Africa during studies in 2003 is 14.8%. The Church though, educates the illiterate in Africa.
3. The fact that most African Americans are NOT Catholic and therefore do not submit to the Church's stance, though this ethnic minority is the most affected by AIDS in Washington DC.
Another book recommendation
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Thomas E Woods).
I wish you all well.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 11, 2010 11:08 AM
You want a fucking cookie? I see a lot of dancing, but I see you don't really explain why this, of all the infinite possible combinations of universal constants, is the only possible universe and all others would end immediately.And furthermore, even if that were true, that does nothing to imply intent. Just because something is improbable does not make it impossible (something a PhD physicist should know). For all you know, unstable universes wink in and out of existence all the time, but every 10^380th time a stable one pops up.
Posted by: crookedshoes
|
June 11, 2010 1:57 PM
commodianus:
My statement that you would let it happen again is baseless if directed at you; I agree. It was typed at the end of a kind of rant and is for all intents and purposes....baseless. It however is not at all baseless if it is aimed at the church of today. They are up to the same hurtful practices (minus the PUBLIC violence) as they were back then. There has been zero growth. And we can assign COMPLICITY to everyone in the church. Conspiracy...like in the case of the church of today covering up child rape. Did everyone in the church rape a child? No, but to cover it up and help the rapist get away with it, you are at least partially complicit; an accomplice if you will. If I murdered someone and you hid the murder weapon for me, you'd open yourself to prosecution...Again, not for murder but complicity in my transgression. The church of today continues to destroy lives and yes, they do good (whether enough to balance the bad is opinion). Hurting one innocent does not justify ten thousand good acts. I am afraid you are looking through a pair of BIAS GLASSES and cannot (or will not) see the situation objectively because you are invested in it -- that is fine, not a crime, not a big deal, but if true (and again I suspect it but don't know it) it skews most of your posts here.
As for belonging to a country that has plundered and stolen and killed etc.... It is not a good analogy. You didn't choose to be born WHERE you were born and from your remark it seems you do not have allegiance to the country and will stand up and criticize it when you think it has done wrong. All I am asking is that you apply the same mode of thinking to the religion that you CHOOSE to be a part of. You may have been born into your religion, as you were born intoyour country, but you seem to look at one of them objectively and the other can not do wrong.
Another small point is that your country does not preach "goodness" and "purity" and "virtue"... Governments have to have dirty hands; again, not a judgment, but an assertion. Religion makes claims. It should NEVER HURT. NEVER. Forget the idea of "blaming the whole church for the acts of a few men"... If the church's teachings and DOGMA are correct, there should be no CHANCE for atrocity. The mere fact that there have been so many atrocities committed both by the church and for the church should be an indicator that maybe you should look at your church through the same pair of glasses that you look at your country. Then and only then will your opinion be informed and valid.
Posted by: robinsrule
|
June 11, 2010 2:22 PM
@commodianus:
Incorrect. I asked you for evidence. Let's see what you have.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 11, 2010 2:38 PM
Further the argument cannot be made that Galileo, who was not a theologian, had the right to claim authoritative interpretation regarding the Scriptures of the Church. This is still heresy.
- Commodianus the liar
Look, scumbag, your church threatened Galileo with torture and burning alive, and imprisoned him for life, over differences of opinion. What part of this being evil do you not grasp? Your church has a long record of torturing and murdering people for disagreeing with its teaching. What part of this being evil do you not grasp? Your church is even now persecuting gays, killing millions with its lies about condoms, and protecting predatory pedophiles from justice. What part of this being evil do you not grasp?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 11, 2010 2:43 PM
Well Donohue is picking his targets well.
This week it's Lady GaGa.
Keep up the good work Billy and try to not trip over those big floppy shoes.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 11, 2010 2:45 PM
Oh, and commodianus the liar, I notice you do not dispute the accuracy of the quotations either from Galileo or from Bellarmine.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 11, 2010 2:52 PM
You are not a physicist, are you? I am. PhD. - clownshoe@149
So's Victor Stenger.
Now, we have a choice between a renowned cosmologist, and some random anonymous blog commenter who claims to have a PhD in physics. Tricky.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 11, 2010 3:03 PM
You're asking me for contingent proof of a none contingent. This is a straw man. - commodianus the liar
No, it isn't. It is quite possible for empirical evidence to be provided for necessary truths. for example, I can provide evidence that 6 is a composite number by taking six square counters and arranging them in a 2 by 3 rectangle. Of course, if you have a logical proof of the existence of a deity, feel free to present it.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 11, 2010 3:06 PM
clownshoe@149 - Me
I do beg your pardon most humbly. That should of course be:
clownshoe PhD@149
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
June 11, 2010 3:09 PM
commodianus @ 150;
You do understand that you just endorsed the idea of thought crimes?
I find it hard to believe, but you actually asserted that non-believers should be subject to irrational religious laws when it comes to their public statements (you may also extend this to their priovate lives, I do not know) in the contemporary world. You have just dismissed the idea of freedom of expression when it comes to religion. Your position is not a million miles away from that of the Taliban...
All this before we get to the fact that the Church you wish to confer such privilege upon has an incredibly nasty and ongoing history of brutal oppression of women and homosexuals along with apologia for racism, slavery and rape. Oh and, lest we forget, there is also the repugnant legacy of child rape to consider. Not exactly a good CV for an organisation angling to be viewed as the supreme moral authority, now is it?
Please, please, please tell me that you are a Poe...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 11, 2010 3:16 PM
Coming from the position he's been defending, does that really surprise you?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 11, 2010 3:21 PM
commodianus #150,
What are you talking about? I wanted to know if you thought it right for the Roman Catholic Church to threaten the lives of scientists and if you think that is pro-science?
The RCC having scientists in its employment says nothing about how good the RCC was for science; all it says is that the RCC knew way back then even that science works.
Myself, I don't think the RCC was pro-science. I think it usurped science to maintain its power and to carry on its evil ways.
Posted by: raven
|
June 11, 2010 3:27 PM
Commodianus is most likely piltdown man, a Catholic troll banned for insanity.
Among other craziness, he once defended the Spanish Inquisition and thinks we should have another one right now.
Not sure what he thinks of witch hunts and witch burnings or priests serially raping children but as a RCC fanatic, he probably would defend those too.
Enjoy playing with the troll but don't expect anything remotely sane or intelligent from him.
PS. He once threatened to become a priest. Just what the church needs, yet again another very bizarre and wacko character with some responsibilities and authority.
Posted by: robinsrule
|
June 11, 2010 3:38 PM
Interesting quote from "The Crime of Galileo" by Giorgio de Santillana, via Google Books:
"It has become a set piece in history to present Pope Urban VIII and his counselors as the bigoted oppressors of science. It would be possibly more accurate to say that they were the first bewildered victims of the scientific age. They had come into collision with a force of which they had not the faintest notion. In that sense, they are almost the polar opposite of the "progressive" rulers of the twentieth century, who are, one and all, bigoted believers in "scientism" while dealing with science in a no less highhanded manner."
Damn scientism.
Posted by: theswede
|
June 11, 2010 5:21 PM
@commodianus
I don't care even a tiny little bit what YOU think is effective in AIDS prevention. I asked what you thought of the stance of the Church on the matter. You know, the stance which kills people in Africa while you sit avoiding the issue here.
As to why availability of condoms doesn't prevent the spread of AIDS in high risk communities where non-sexual vectors are dominant, it does take a bit more brainpower than you seem to be able to muster to figure out why it's a non-sequitur, apparently.
And speaking of avoiding the issue, I note you refrained from answering ANY of my points with reference to the Church's position - or even answer them at all.
Thus, your status as a troll (and a pretty lousy one at that) is confirmed.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94
|
June 15, 2010 4:24 AM
KOPD
Yes please. That would be really interesting. Or creepy, actually. I did not know cookies multiply that way. Always thought that one was from intelligent design. LOL. Did not say that all others would't work. But if the cosmological constant would be more than about 1000 times bigger than ours, I think there would be problems already for the structure formation of galaxies and stars etc. That's in the equations. Read Kolb & Turner and do the math yourself. Make that 10^10 times bigger than ours just to be on the safe safe. Then it is still 10^(-110) times smaller than the natural scale for vacuum energy, a really weirdly small number that a habitable univers must be below. Right. So what? Who says it does? Congrats! That's about the idea of Susskind. You should really check him out.
This is an interesting problem in its own right, just like the one about the evolution of the eye. The eye in all its complexity we know already can develop through evolution. So how about this apparent cosmologocial extreme fine tuning? Scientific curiousity, anyone? Or is that just for people who do not hate religion?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94
|
June 15, 2010 4:35 AM
@Knockgoats idiot!
(When in Rome, behave like romans. I guess that's a friendly "hello!" in your place?)
Susskind is not anonymous. I am talking about his ideas. A smart guy who quite recently won a debate with Hawking. Check out the "black hole war".