• In total there are 3 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Ask a Christian

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Ask a Christian

Unread post

When the Bible conflicts with observable reality, which do you believe?
That's fine for you to ask. I'm not certain who it is that impressed upon you that the Bible should be read as a scientific text book and completely out of context. I guess you are satisfied with a superficial treatment.

Some history for you and a question:

Galileo insisted that dispite how observation was informing people, the earth spins and revolves around the sun. All this, dispite your inabilty to feel the rotation of the ground under you, and watching the sun arching around the sky every single day.

If you would have read "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" you would have declared Galileo delusional because what he wrote conflicted with observable reality.
Right?
User avatar
Murmur
Internet Sage
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:13 pm
8
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 128 times
Gender:
Ukraine

Re: Ask a Christian

Unread post

ant wrote:
When the Bible conflicts with observable reality, which do you believe?
That's fine for you to ask. I'm not certain who it is that impressed upon you that the Bible should be read as a scientific text book and completely out of context.
I don't think that the Bible should be read as scientific text. MarieMattenson24 is the one who said that she believes every word in the Bible. She's the one who thinks it should be read as scientific text. I've been asking her that if it conflicts with observable reality, which should she believe.
If you would have read "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" you would have declared Galileo delusional because what he wrote conflicted with observable reality.
Right?
It seems that you think that I think that "observable reality" means "visually obvious". I don't. I used "observable reality" as a synonym for "that which is discovered via the scientific method, and is most likely true".
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Ask a Christian

Unread post

Right, okay. Thanks for clarifying for me that you rely on the scientific method heavily.


Can you answer this question for me?
If you would have read "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" you would have declared Galileo delusional because what he wrote conflicted with observable reality.
Right?
User avatar
Murmur
Internet Sage
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:13 pm
8
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 128 times
Gender:
Ukraine

Re: Ask a Christian

Unread post

ant wrote:Right, okay. Thanks for clarifying for me that you rely on the scientific method heavily.


Can you answer this question for me?
If you would have read "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" you would have declared Galileo delusional because what he wrote conflicted with observable reality.
Right?
Galileo's work is based on the scientific method, so I would agree with Galileo.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Ask a Christian

Unread post

Murmur wrote:
ant wrote:Right, okay. Thanks for clarifying for me that you rely on the scientific method heavily.


Can you answer this question for me?
If you would have read "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" you would have declared Galileo delusional because what he wrote conflicted with observable reality.
Right?
Galileo's work is based on the scientific method, so I would agree with Galileo.

Can you tell me what empirical evidence he presented at the time and how he went about demonstrating it to the church scientifically?
User avatar
Murmur
Internet Sage
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:13 pm
8
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 128 times
Gender:
Ukraine

Re: Ask a Christian

Unread post

ant wrote:
Murmur wrote: Galileo's work is based on the scientific method, so I would agree with Galileo.

Can you tell me what empirical evidence he presented at the time and how he went about demonstrating it to the church scientifically?
I couldn't. However, I could ask him how he came to his conclusions and test them myself. Reproducibility is part of the scientific method, afterall.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Ask a Christian

Unread post

Murmur wrote:
I couldn't. However, I could ask him how he came to his conclusions and test them myself. Reproducibility is part of the scientific method, afterall.
Okay, well, he had nearly zero evidence to produce to an institution that asked him for some. And because he didn't, said institution asked him to consider signifying the heliocentric model as a working hypothesis in his publication.
Instead, he chose to be a smart ass about it and rambled on about people being fools for doubting a model that lacked evidence.

Within the proper context, it's reasonable to state:

1) The church reasonably requested evidence and the signification of Hypothesis

2) A discerning person would have been reasonable to doubt a claim that was contrary to observation and experience

3) If Galileo wasn't able to empirically confirm his hypothesis as fact by the scientific method, neither would you have been able too

4) You would have been believing a claim with no evidence that contradict observation and experience.


What else might you believe today that is without evidence? Cause, you know, it's not only "Bible Thumpers" that believe stuff without empirical evidence for it.
Or are you saying you don't believe anything that hasn't been confirmed by the scientific method?
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: Ask a Christian

Unread post

ant wrote: Okay, well, he had nearly zero evidence to produce to an institution that asked him for some. And because he didn't, said institution asked him to consider signifying the heliocentric model as a working hypothesis in his publication.
Galileo's evidence was not "nearly zero" for those who chose to look at it with any care. Jupiter's moons were clearly moons, and followed orbits which, like those of the planets, were slower when further away. The phases of Venus and Mercury showed them to be circling the sun, and had a shape which, like the shadow of the earth in an eclipse, which suggested the round earth to the Ancients, also showed them to be spherical bodies. The appearance of Saturn's rings, like Jupiter's moons, showed these planets to be immensely distant, which also gave some idea of the relative size of the sun and the earth.
ant wrote:Instead, he chose to be a smart ass about it and rambled on about people being fools for doubting a model that lacked evidence.
I think that is a fair characterization. The contest between Galileo and the church has often been characterized as one of "revealed religious truth" versus "evidenced facts". In fact there was a larger contest which was at once more mundane and, viewed socially, more significant.

The contest was in the mind of the Pope, who had been a patron of Galileo's scientific enterprise and joined with others in (pseudonymously) publishing the surprising results of them. When the case came for judgement in Rome, the main opponent of Galileo was a monastic order, with one monk in particular having opposed Galileo and been ridiculed for it.

As a nobleman and relatively high-ranking churchman, the pope had been able to indulge his taste for "cutting edge" thought and art. But as Pope the pressures on him, in the middle of the Reformation when the momentous issue of might vs. right was in the balance, led him to choose the politically expedient path of avoiding offense to a monastic order, a major power that he could not afford to make an enemy of. Galileo had counted on his former patron's continued willingness to daringly side with science, but neglected to look at the world from his patron's changed point of view.

Scientists are still sometimes in the position of muttering "Nevertheless the facts are on my side" as they are driven from the room by people more concerned with the pressures of everyday life and power politics.
ant wrote: 3) If Galileo wasn't able to empirically confirm his hypothesis as fact by the scientific method, neither would you have been able too
I think the Pope was pretty clear that the evidence was on Galileo's side. But one can always wait and see if further evidence arrives.

Or can one?
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Ask a Christian

Unread post

That's all understood by anyone aware of the historicity of Galileo's heliocentric model.
However, the observation of satellites orbiting Jupiter was not sufficiently convincing evidence that the earth MUST revolve around the sun. That was a much much more difficult claim to prove at the time.

In comparison, Brahe's Tychonic model had more mathematical evidence for it at the time.
It was the Tychonic model that the Church favored for multiple reasons.

For anyone that cares i can recommend a good book that discusses the historical context in greater detail. Harry is being a smug smartass and is likely not as aptly informed as I am.
think the Pope was pretty clear that the evidence was on Galileo's side. But one can always wait and see if further evidence arrives.
Source?
Last edited by ant on Sat Apr 30, 2016 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Ask a Christian

Unread post

Here is one of my sources that Jovian satellites were inconclusive evidence for a heliocentric model for anyone that would like to treat this with greater care than Harry:

http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Affair-Do ... 0520066626
Last edited by ant on Sat Apr 30, 2016 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”