Maksutov wrote: No, I wasn't. Only weird old religious perverts could come up with the idea of sinful babies. And all so that you can sell people something they don't need,
Maybe a little therapy would allow you to be "reborn" into a functional and sane human being. Nawwwwwwww....
I suppose most people would figure that a newborn has not committed any crimes. That fact does not seem to go very far in blocking humans from committing atrocious things as they gain the ability. Not all of us the same , influence and situations vary. I could think of good Americans lynching people in the last century . I could thing of Germans in ww2 eliminating people , not just in special camps but as groups of armed executioners.
People can be incomprehensibly awful. It is clear we were born into sin. I think it would be well if we were all born again and start building better paths.
Societies have processes for taking raw infants and turning them into productive adult members. At least according to some definitions. The values and the methods are where the controversies ensue. There's also the question of how much influence the church or the state should have over the individual. All good questions.
People can commit atrocities and do. We expect more from humans. But it's our expectations that make us outraged or disappointed.
I don't understand sin as a concept. I understand destructive behaviors, but they're not the same thing. Sin seems to have a lot to do with the ideal, the holy, the pure, and those seem to me to be bizarre abstractions that do more harm than good.
Maksutov wrote: Societies have processes for taking raw infants and turning them into productive adult members. At least according to some definitions. The values and the methods are where the controversies ensue. There's also the question of how much influence the church or the state should have over the individual. All good questions.
People can commit atrocities and do. We expect more from humans. But it's our expectations that make us outraged or disappointed.
I don't understand sin as a concept. I understand destructive behaviors, but they're not the same thing. Sin seems to have a lot to do with the ideal, the holy, the pure, and those seem to me to be bizarre abstractions that do more harm than good.
Maksukov, I have been troubled by the words and ideas of ideal, the Holy, the pure. They seem ambiguous at best, lacking any real meaning sometimes. I actually suspect that these words have real potential to contain bad ,harmful, ideas. They can be evil. I think racist groups have used each of those words to malignant intent. There are other hurtful uses of those words. I do not know of any use of those words which to my view do not fall short of being good.
I know of no other useful way of thinking of sin other than as destructive behavior. I think that is the fundamental meaning in religious use. I have heard it distorted to other purpose at times. I think those distortions can manipulate people because they rely upon the assumed underlying meaning of destructive behavior. If someone says racemixing is unholy and impure they are saying it is destructive behavior but using the fuzzy meanings of holy or purity to pass the idea on to the unsuspecting.
In Germany, especially in the Protestant part of it, the war was even more bitter, and it lasted through the first half of the eighteenth century. Eminent Lutheran doctors of divinity flooded the country with treatises to prove that the Copernican theory could not be reconciled with Scripture. In the theological seminaries and in many of the universities where clerical influence was strong they seemed to sweep all before them ; and yet at the middle of the century we find some of the clearest-headed of them aware of the fact that their cause was lost.*
In 1757 the most enlightened perhaps in the whole line of the popes, Benedict XIV, took up the matter, and the Congregation of the Index secretly allowed the ideas of Co- pernicus to be tolerated. Yet in 1765 Lalande, the great French astronomer, tried in vain at Rome to induce the authorities to remove Galileo's works from the Index. Even at a date far within our own nineteenth century the authori- ties of many universities in Catholic Europe, and especially those in Spain, excluded the Newtonian system. In 1771 the greatest of them all, the University of Salamanca, being urged to teach physical science, refused, making answer as follows: " Newton teaches nothing that would make a good
* For Cassini's position, see Henri Martin, Histoire de France, vol. xiii, p. 175. For Riccioli, see Daunou, Etudes Historiqties, vol. ii, p. 439- I' o^ Bossuet, see Bertrand, p. 41. For Hutchinson, see Lyell, Principles of Geology, p. 48. For Wesley, see his work, already cited. As to Boscovich, his declaration, mentioned in the text, was in 1746, but in 1785 he seemed to feel his position in view of his- tory, and apologized abjectly : Bertrand, pp. 60, 61. See also Whewell's notice of Le Sueur and Jacquier's introduction to their edition of Newton's Principia. For the struggle in (iermany, see Zoeckler, Geschichte der Beziehutigen zivischen Theo- logie und Natur^vissenschaft, vol. ii, pp. 45 et seq.
logician or metaphysician ; and Gassendi and Descartes do not agree so well with revealed truth as Aristotle does."
Vengeance upon the dead also has continued far into our own century. On the 5th of May, 1829, a great multitude assembled at Warsaw to honour the memory of Copernicus and to unveil Thorwaldsen's statue of him.
Copernicus had lived a pious, Christian life ; he had been beloved for unostentatious Christian charity ; with his re- ligious belief no fault had ever been found ; he was a canon of the Church at Frauenberg, and over his grave had been written the most touching of Christian epitaphs. Naturally, then, the people expected a religious service ; all was under- stood to be arranged for it ; the procession marched to the church and waited. The hour passed, and no priest ap- peared ; none could be induced to appear. Copernicus, gentle, charitable, pious, one of the noblest gifts of God to religion as well as to science, was evidently still under the ban. Five years after that, his book was still standing on the Index of books prohibited to Christians.
The edition of the Index published in 18 19 was as inexo- rable toward the works of Copernicus and Galileo as its predecessors had been; but in the year 1820 came a crisis. Canon Settele, Professor of Astronomy at Rome, had written an elementary book in which the Copernican system was taken for granted. The Master of the Sacred Palace, An- fossi, as censor of the press, refused to allow the book to be printed unless Settele revised his work and treated the Co- pernican theory as merely a hypothesis. On this Settele ap- pealed to Pope Pius VII, and the Pope referred the matter to the Congregation of the Holy Ofifice. At last, on the 16th of August, 1820, it was decided that Settele might teach the Copernican system as established, and this decision was ap- proved by the Pope. This aroused considerable discussion, but finally, on the nth of September, 1822, the cardinals of the Holy Inquisition graciously agreed that '* the printing and publication of works treating of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with the general opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted at Rome." This decree was ratified by Pius VII, but it was not until thirteen years later, in 1835, that there was issued an edition of the Index from which the condemnation of works defend- inof the double motion of the earth was left out.
This was not a moment too soon, for, as if the previous proofs had not been sufficient, each of the motions of the earth was now absolutely demonstrated anew, so as to be recognised by the ordinary observer. The parallax of fixed stars, shown by Bessel as well as other noted astronomers in 1838, clinched forever the doctrine of the revolution of the earth around the sun, and in 1851 the great experiment of Foucault with the pendulum showed to the human eye the earth in motion around its own axis. To make the matter complete, this experiment was publicly made in one of the churches at Rome by the eminent astronomer, Father Sec- chi, of the Jesuits, in 1852 — just two hundred and twenty years after the Jesuits had done so much to secure Galileo's condemnation.*
* For good statements of the final action of the Church in the matter, see Gebler; also Zoeckler, ii, 352. See also Bertrand, Fondateurs de Astronomie moderne, p. 61 ; Flammarion, Vie de Copernic, chap. ix. As to the time when the decree of condemnation was repealed, there have been various pious attempts to make it earlier than the reality. Artaud, p. 307, cited in an apologetic article in the Dublin Review, September, 1865, says that Galileo's famous dialogue was pub- lished in 1714, at Padua, entire, and with the usual approbations. The same article also declares that in 1818 the ecclesiastical decrees were repealed by Pius VII in full Consistory. Whewell accepts this ; but Cantu, an authority favourable to the Church, acknowledges that Copernicus's work remained on the Index as late as 1835 (Cantu, Histoire universelle, vol. xv, p. 483) ; and with this Th. Martin, not less favourable to the Church, but exceedingly careful as to the facts, agrees ; and the most eminent authority of all, Prof. Reusch, of Bonn, in his Der hidex der verbotenen BUchcr, Bonn, 1885, vol. ii, p. 396, confirms the above statement in the text. For a clear statement of Bradley's exquisite demonstration of the Coperni- can theory by reasonings upon the rapidity of light, etc., and Foucault's exhibition of the rotation of the earth by the pendulum experiment, see Hoefer, Histoire de I Astronomie, pp. 492 et seq. For more recent proofs of the Copernican theory, by the discoveries of Bunsen, Bischoff, Benzenburg, and others, see Jevons, Principles of Science.
In vain did Galileo try to prove the existence of satel- lites by showing them to the doubters through his telescope : they either declared it impious to look, or, if they did look, denounced the satellites as illusions from the devil. Good Father Clavius declared that " to see satellites of Jupiter, men had to make an instrument which would create them." In vain did Galileo try to save the great truths he had dis- covered by his letters to the Benedictine Castelli and the Grand-Duchess Christine, in which he argued that literal biblical interpretation should not be applied to science ; it w^as answered that such an argument only made his heresy more detestable ; that he was '* worse than Luther or Calvin."
The war on the Copernican theory which up to that time had been carried on quietly, now flamed forth. It w^as declared that the doctrine was proved false by the standing still of the sun for Joshua, by the declarations that '* the foundations of the earth are fixed so firm that they can not be moved," and that the sun " runneth about from one end of the heavens to the other." *
But the little telescope of Galileo still swept the heavens, and another revelation was announced — the mountains and valleys in the moon. This brought on another attack. It was declared that this, and the statement that the moon shines by light reflected from the sun, directly contradict the statement in Genesis that the moon is *' a great light." To make the matter worse, a painter, placing the moon in a religious picture in its usual position beneath the feet of the Blessed Virgin, outlined on its surface mountains and val- leys ; this was denounced as a sacrilege logically resulting from the astronomer's heresy.
Still another struggle was aroused when the hated tele- scope revealed spots upon the sun, and their motion indicat- ing the sun's rotation. Monsignor Elci, head of the Univer- sity of Pisa, forbade the astronomer Castelli to mention these spots to his students. Father Busaeus, at the University of Innspruck, forbade the astronomer Scheiner, who had also discovered the spots and proposed a safe explanation of them, to allow the new discovery to be known there. At the College of Douay and the University of Louvain this discovery was expressly placed under the ban, and this be- came the general rule among the Catholic universities and colleges of Europe. The Spanish universities were espe- cially intolerant of this and similar ideas, and up to a recent period their presentation was strictly forbidden in the most important university of all— that of Salamanca.
Such are the consequences of placing the instruction of men's minds in the hands of those mainly absorbed in saving men's souls. Nothing could be more in accordance with the idea recently put forth by sundry ecclesiastics, Catholic and Protestant, that the Church alone is empowered to pro- mulgate scientific truth or direct university instruction. But science gained a victory here also. Observations of the solar spots were reported not only from Galileo in Italy, but from Fabricius in Holland. Father Scheiner then en- deavoured to make the usual compromise between theology and science. He promulgated a pseudo-scientific theory, which only provoked derision.
The war became more and more bitter. The Dominican Father Caccini preached a sermon from the text, " Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?" and this wretched pun upon the great astronomer's name ushered in sharper weapons ; for, before Caccini ended, he insisted that ''geometry is of the devil," and that" mathematicians should be banished as the authors of all heresies." The Church authorities gave Caccini promotion.
* See Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature, vol. iii.
Father Lorini proved that Galileo's doctrine was not only heretical but '-atheistic," and besought the Inquisition to intervene. The Bishop of Fiesole screamed in rage against the Copernican system, publicly insulted Galileo, and de- nounced him to the Grand-Duke. The Archbishop of Pisa secretly sought to entrap Galileo and deliver him to the In- quisition at Rome. The Archbishop of Florence solemnly condemned the new doctrines as unscriptural ; and Paul V, while petting Galileo, and inviting him as the greatest astron- omer of the world to visit Rome, was secretly moving the Archbishop of Pisa to pick up evidence against the astron- omer.
But by far the most terrible champion who now ap- peared was Cardinal Bellarmin, one of the greatest theo- logians the world has known. He was earnest, sincere, and learned, but insisted on making science conform to Scripture. The weapons which men of Bellarmin's stamp used were purely theological. They held up before the world the dreadful consequences w^hich must result to Christian theology were the heavenly bodies proved to revolve about the sun and not about the earth. Their most tremendous dogmatic engine was the statement that '' his pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation." Father Lecazre declared " it casts suspicion on the doctrine of the incarnation." Others declared, " It upsets the whole basis of theology. If the earth is a planet, and only one among several planets, it can not be that any such great things have been done specially for it as the Christian doctrine teaches. If there are other planets, since God makes nothing in vain, they must be inhabited ; but how can their inhabitants be descended from Adam? How can they trace back their origin to Noah's ark ? How can they have been redeemed by the Saviour?" Nor was this argument confined to the theologians of the Roman Church ; Melanchthon, Protestant as he was, had already used it in his attacks on Copernicus and his school.
Maksutov wrote:Such are the consequences of placing the instruction of men's minds in the hands of those mainly absorbed in saving men's souls. .
Are we doubling back over some of the same territory? Check to see if anybody is reading?
I have been impressed that though the general outline of the story is well engraved in my mind the memory of the length and endurance of the resistence to the light of day surprises me. A memory trace tells me I have let some of that fade. I was still in grade school when I read an adult history of the development of science. Basics of the discoveries of individuals were presented with methods and a bit of biography. Galileo became a chlld hood hero and I pursued a small telescope and the study of astronomy for a few years thereafter. I kept a suspicion of religious authority knowing they may be tempted to claim to know about things about which they are in possession only of ignorance.
I find myself asking why the perseverance? I admit to a bit of prejudice against Missouri synod as the most backward ingrown narrow variety of American Lutheranism but fighting Copernicus in the19th century?
Is it purely for power that they have portrayed themselves to history as consummate creators of ignorance? A devotee of power would have better sense I suspect. They are unable to convince Nipper that the Bible actually teaches an earth which does not move nor that the idea is necessary for faith. Yet for them they seemed to think faith rested upon the foundation of an earth at the center of the universe.
I was going to come up with a clever explanation for this but have not and instead find myself annoyed.
Maksutov wrote:Such are the consequences of placing the instruction of men's minds in the hands of those mainly absorbed in saving men's souls. .
Are we doubling back over some of the same territory? Check to see if anybody is reading?
I have been impressed that though the general outline of the story is well engraved in my mind the memory of the length and endurance of the resistence to the light of day surprises me. A memory trace tells me I have let some of that fade. I was still in grade school when I read an adult history of the development of science. Basics of the discoveries of individuals were presented with methods and a bit of biography. Galileo became a chlld hood hero and I pursued a small telescope and the study of astronomy for a few years thereafter. I kept a suspicion of religious authority knowing they may be tempted to claim to know about things about which they are in possession only of ignorance.
I find myself asking why the perseverance? I admit to a bit of prejudice against Missouri synod as the most backward ingrown narrow variety of American Lutheranism but fighting Copernicus in the19th century?
Is it purely for power that they have portrayed themselves to history as consummate creators of ignorance? A devotee of power would have better sense I suspect. They are unable to convince Nipper that the Bible actually teaches an earth which does not move nor that the idea is necessary for faith. Yet for them they seemed to think faith rested upon the foundation of an earth at the center of the universe.
I was going to come up with a clever explanation for this but have not and instead find myself annoyed.
Looks like I did repost some of the Galileo material. I'll clean it up shortly and get us back into the post-Galileo era.
