The Catholic Curch And Science - Proposed FAQ (long)
alwaysaskingquestions
relationship between the Catholic Church and Science. Due to what I regarded
as a wide misunderstanding of the Church's attititude, I suggested that a
FAQ for TO might be appropriate and this was promptly kicked back to me -
"Why don't you do it then!" :)
My first attempt at this is given below for debate and discussion.
I would ask only that people debate this in a serious way, that hopefully we
can avoid the slanging matches that inevitably seem to arise with this topic
and maybe tease out an appropriate agreement on the accuracy or otherwise of
what I have said..
Also, I'd appreciate opinions on whether this really is an appropriate
subject for a TO FAQ and whether I've gone about it in the right way; also,
if we do end up with some form of consensus, how do I go about submitting it
as a FAQ?.
------------------------------------
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SCIENCE.
(Note: I should point out that this article has been written specifically in
regard to the Church's attitude to scientific matters - areas like the
Church's involvement in war and politics, its teachings on issues like
contraception and the use of embryos for stem cell research and the Church's
abysmal record on child abuse are outside the realms of science and are
therefore not considered here.)
Introduction
----------------
It is often argued that the Catholic Church is anti-science in general and
anti-evolution in particular.
When people who make this accusation are challenged to give examples of the
Church being anti-science, they invariably bring up Galileo. As Cardinal
Newman once observed, people doing this completely miss out the irony in the
fact that they have to go back over 400 years to find a single example to
support their argument.
They also often show a complete lack of knowledge of what actually caused
the problems between Galileo and the Church which is typical of the total
lack of public knowledge of how much the Catholic Church has directly
contributed to the development of modern science. Before discussing the
attitude of the present day Church to science, it is worthwhile to look back
through history to track the ongoing nature of the relationship between the
Church and science.
The Early Days of the Church
---------------------------------
It is somewhat paradoxical that those Christians who attack science as evil
generally base their arguments on the inerrancy of the Bible yet, when we
study the teachings of the founder of Christianity, we find that He had
absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about science.
The teachings of Jesus Christ are entirely focused on human behaviour,
relationships and motivation. He does not anywhere refer directly to matters
that can be classed as scientific though it could be argued that when He
says in Matthew 15:11 "What goes into a man's mouth does not make him
'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him
'unclean.'", He is effectively saying that the relationship between man and
God is an entirely spiritual one and has nothing to do with physical things.
The first real reference to science in the Church's teachings comes in the
writings of St. Augustine who lived from 354 to 430.
It is impossible to overstate the influence of Augustine on the development
of Christian theology with many of his ideas still forming the bedrock of
modern theological thinking, not just in the Catholic Church but across
almost all the various Christian denominations; many Protestants, especially
Calvinists, consider him to be one of the theological fountainheads of
Reformation teaching on salvation and grace.
In his many writings, Augustine touched on three main areas of relating to
science[i]:
1) He specifically wrote that the Genesis account of creation is not to be
taken literally, it is allegorical:
"In all the sacred books, we should consider the eternal truths that are
taught, the facts that are narrated, the future events that are predicted,
and the precepts or counsels that are given. In the case of a narrative of
events, the question arises as to whether everything must be taken according
to the figurative sense only, or whether it must be expounded and defended
also as a faithful record of what happened. No Christian will dare say that
the narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense. For St. Paul says:
"Now all these things that happened to them were symbolic."
(Book 1, 1:1)
This is particularly relevant to science as much of the conflict between
science and religion actually boils down an insistence by fundamentalist
Christians that the Genesis account has to be taken literally and therefore
science must be wrong.
2) He wrote specifically that it is not just foolish for Christians to deny
the findings of science, that it actually endangers the credibility of
Christian teachings:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the
stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable
eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about
the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he
holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian,
presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these
topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing
situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is
derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred
writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose
salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected
as unlearned men."
(Book 1, 19:39)
3) In Book 4 of his treatise on Genesis, Augustine puts forward the concept
of 'rationes seminal' where he suggests that although God created all things
instantaneously, many of them were created in the form of seeds which did
not develop into living things until much later; he also suggests that Man
may not have been created directly from the 'slime of the earth' but that
God had previously placed the seeds for Man in the slime..
Although Augustine's interpretations do not fit in precisely with modern
evolutionary concepts, it does show that over 1400 years before Darwin, he
did outline a form of evolution which shares many characteristics with
modern theory.
Augustine also emphasised that he was not attempting to give a definitive
account of how the Creation took place and that any interpretation of the
Bible must take into account new knowledge:
"In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we
may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes
possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we
should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that,
if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position,
we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy
Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas
we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture."
(Book 1, 18:37)
It has been argued that Augustine was inherently opposed to science, a quote
commonly attributed to him - but never with a specific citation - is:
"There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is
the disease of curiosity ... It is this which drives us to try and discover
the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding,
which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn." [ii]
This may possibly be a reference to Augustine's Confessions 10.35.55 which
the Christian Classics Ethereal Library edition[iii] translates as:
"Thus also in the other senses, which it were long to go through. From this
disease of curiosity are all those strange sights exhibited in the theatre.
Hence men go on to search out the hidden powers of nature (which is besides
our end), which to know profits not, and wherein men desire nothing but to
know."
This translation ties in with the overall teaching of Augustine that for
Christians, 'knowledge for knowledge's sake' is not enough, that advances in
knowledge must be reconciled with their religious beliefs and that not all
questions can be answered through human logic and scientific investigation -
that ultimately there are things we cannot grasp and we have to accept them
on faith alone.
That is the approach adopted by the Catholic Church right through to the
present time.
The Dark Ages
--------------------
"In historiography, the term Dark Ages or Dark Age most commonly refers to
the European Early Middle Ages, the period encompassing (roughly) 476 to
1000.
This concept of a dark age was created by the Italian scholar Francesco
Petrarca (Petrarch) and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of
the character of Late Latin literature. Later historians expanded the term
to include not only the lack of Latin literature, but also a lack of
contemporary written history and material cultural achievements in general.
Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the
Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and
expanding its scope. The rise of archaeology and other specialties in the
20th century has shed much light on the period and offered a more nuanced
understanding of its positive developments." [iv]
In regards to science, although there were no significant developments
during this period, a number of historians have identified monasticism as an
important factor in preserving and promulgating knowledge - secular as well
as religious - that was to provide the springboard for the development of
universities[v] which in turn led to the development of modern science.
Alfred Von Harnack, for example, said of monastic education:
"They studied the songs of heathen poets and the writings of historians and
philosophers. Monasteries and monastic schools blossomed forth, and each
settlement became a center of religious life as well as of education." [vi]
According to Alexander Clarence Flick:
"They not only established schools and were the schoolmasters in them, but
also laid the foundations for the universities. They were the thinkers and
philosophers of the day and shaped the political and religious thought. To
them, both collectively and individually, was due the continuity of thought
and civilization of the ancient world with the later Middle Ages and with
the modern period.[vii]
The historian Lowrie Daly described the Church's pivotal role in the
development of universities being due to the fact that the Church was "the
only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the
preservation and cultivation of knowledge." [viii]
The Scientific Revolution
--------------------------------
The event which most historians of science call the scientific revolution
can be dated roughly as having begun in 1543, the year in which Nicolaus
Copernicus published his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the
Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) and Andreas Vesalius published his De
humani corporis fabrica (On the Fabric of the Human body). As with many
historical demarcations, historians of science disagree about its
boundaries, some seeing elements contributing to the revolution as early as
the 14th century and finding its last stages in chemistry and biology in the
18th and 19th centuries. There is general agreement, however, that the
intervening period saw a fundamental transformation in scientific ideas in
physics, astronomy and biology, in institutions supporting scientific
investigation, and in the more widely held picture of the universe.[ix]
Whilst many people focus on the specifics of the 'Galileo affair' as
representing the attitude of the Church towards sciences at that time, this
is totally untrue.
Whilst the concept of a heliocentric universe had been voiced by various
philosophers and scientists from ancient times, Copernicus was initially
reluctant to publish it as a formal theory, not out of fear of censure from
the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues. It was actually
the Church who convinced him to publish it - with particular encouragement
from the Jesuits who had a long-time interest in Astronomy - to the extent
that Copernicus dedicated his revolutionary book to the man who made this
research possible, Pope Paul III.
The fears that Copernicus had about rejection by his colleagues were
probably justified by the reaction given to Johannes Kepler when he
published his various works on laws of planetary motion seventy years later.
Initially, Kepler's work was completely ignored by leading scientists
including Galileo and Rene Descartes and many astronomers, including his own
teacher, Michael Maestlin, objected to Kepler's introduction of physics into
his astronomy. Kepler also was the subject of censure by a number of his
fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views but again, like Copernicus,
received active support from the Church in general and the Jesuits in
particular who were instrumental in having him restored to the position of
Chair of Astronomy at Graz after the archduke Ferdinand issued an edict of
banishment against Protestant preachers and professors. .
It should not be surprising that the Church had such a high level of
interest and encouragement for Astronomy - much of it was driven by the
Church's desire to derive an accurate date for Easter, the major feast in
the Church.
In his book "The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories"[x],
respected historian John L. Heilbron states that "The Roman Catholic Church
gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over
six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle
Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and, probably, all other,
institutions."; he goes on to give many examples of the Church's active
involvement including the specific design of several cathedrals so that they
could also function as observatories.
Galileo
----------
Why then, in view of the Church's active support for astronomy and the
theories of Copernicus and Kepler, did it run into problems with Galileo?
The answer is that the issue that the Church had with Galileo was not at all
his argument about the Earth circling the Sun. Their problem was that
Galileo insisted he was right without sufficient evidence to back up his
ideas at that stage and with no explanation for the particular problem of
the absence of observable parallex shifts in the stars' positions. Despite
this lack of proof and unanswered issues, Galileo insisted on promoting his
ideas as established fact and set out to challenge the then current
interpretation of Holy Scripture on the basis of these unproven ideas.
In 1623, Pope Urban VIII gave Galileo permission to write a work on
heliocentrism, but cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to
present arguments for and against it. Galileo responded with the 'Dialogue
on the Two World Systems' in which he made a mockery of the Pope who had
been a long-time friend and supporter. He also alienated the Jesuits - also
his long-time supporters - with attacks on one of their astronomers.
It was those events that led to Galileo's trail and detention, not his
heliocentric ideas per se.
In regard to his trial and detention, there are also a number of widespread
fallacies that have to be corrected.
Galileo was never tortured nor is there any evidence that he was even
threatened with torture - because he gave acceptable answers to his
Inquistors, torture would not have been allowed under Church Law.
Neither was he ever imprisoned, let alone in a dungeon. After his first
appearance at the Inquisition in 1615, he received only a mild censure and
was sent on his way. Following his second appearance at the Inquisition in
1633, he was sentenced to a mild form of house arrest and was allowed to
live in the palace of Niccolini, the Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican and an
ardent supporter of Galileo.
In a letter of February 13, 1633, to the King of Tuscany, Ambassador
Niccolini described the surprisingly benign treatment accorded the
astronomer:
"The pope told me that he had shown to Galileo a favor never accorded to
another in allowing him to reside in my house instead of the [apartments] of
the Holy Office. . . . His Holiness said he could not avoid having Galileo
brought to the Holy Office for the examination and I replied that my
gratitude would be doubled if he would exempt Galileo from this appearance,
but he answered that he could not do so. . . . He concluded with the promise
to assign Galileo certain rooms which are most convenient in the Holy
Office" [xi]
.
On April 16, Niccolini mentioned,
"He has a servant and every convenience. The Reverend Commissary assigned
him the apartments of the judge of the tribunal. My own servants carry his
meals from my house." Niccolini's June 18 dispatch revealed that, "In regard
to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he
disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication
of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict
him as little as possible."
Was the Church right or wrong in the way it treated Galileo? Despite two
apologies from the Church - in 1825 by Dom Olivieri, the General of the
Dominican order and commissary of the Holy Office, and again in 1989 by Pope
John Paul II - some historians argue that the Church treated him more than
fairly; the historian Giorgio de Santillana, for example, who is not
disposed toward the Church's side, writes that "we must, if anything, admire
the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities".
It can also be argued that the Church was following the principles of the
Scientific Method so dear to many people on talkorigins - the Church did not
reject Galileo's ideas because it disputed them, it simply refused to accept
them as scientific facts until the evidence was achieved.
Post Galileo
----------------
The problems with Galileo did not in any way deter the Church from its
ongoing support for and involvement in science.
In his book "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilisation" [xii]
Thomas E. Woods, Jr. lists many examples of how members of the Church have
contributed directly to science as well as many other areas including the
arts, agriculture, technology and economics:
It turns out, for instance, that the first person to measure the rate of
acceleration of a freely falling body was Fr. Giambattista Riccioli. The man
who has been called the father of Egyptology was Fr. Athanasius Kircher
(also called "master of a hundred arts" for the breadth of his knowledge).
Fr. Roger Boscovich, who has been described as "the greatest genius that
Yugoslavia ever produced," has often been called the father of modern atomic
theory.
In the sciences it was the Jesuits in particular who distinguished
themselves; some 35 craters on the moon, in fact, are named after Jesuit
scientists and mathematicians.
Seismology, the study of earthquakes, has been so dominated by Jesuits that
it has become known as "the Jesuit science."
The Jesuits were also the first to introduce Western science into such
far-off places as China and India. In seventeenth-century China in
particular, Jesuits introduced a substantial body of scientific knowledge
and a vast array of mental tools for understanding the physical universe,
including the Euclidean geometry that made planetary motion comprehensible.
When Johannes Kepler posited that planetary orbits were elliptical rather
than circular, Catholic astronomer Giovanni Cassini verified Kepler's
position through observations he made in the Basilica of San Petronio in the
heart of the Papal States. Cassini, incidentally, was a student of Fr.
Riccioli and Fr. Francesco Grimaldi, the great astronomer who also
discovered the diffraction of light, and even gave the phenomenon its name.
Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly career, has
developed a compelling argument that in fact it was important aspects of the
Christian worldview that accounted for why it was in the West that science
enjoyed the success it did as a self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian
cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were
burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of science.
Jaki extends this thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian,
Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki explains,
science suffered a "stillbirth"
The Church Today
-------------------------
Due mainly to changes in the Western education system, particularly in the
increased secularisation of education, the Church has played a much less
prominent role at the forefront of scientific advancement although have been
notable exceptions such as Belgian priest Georges Lemaītre, the first
person to promote the Big Bang Theory in 1927.
Nevertheless, the Church continues to support scientific endeavour; one
example of this is the Church's refusal to support the Intelligent Design
movement. It is also worth noting that in the current US environment with
constant battles between the ID movement and science as to what should be
taught in schools, there has been no criticism of any kind from the
scientific community about the standard of science - including biology -
taught in Catholic run schools; indeed, there seems to be a general
acceptance that the quality of teaching is probably better than that in
public schools.
The Church, of course, has never had a problem with Evolutionary Theory -
from the writings of Augustine to the Church's total lack of opposition to
the writings of Charles Darwin, the Church has never rejected any scientific
theories that are accepted by the scientific community at large.
Recognition of the Church's attitude to science is perhaps best illustrated
by the words of Pope John Paul II when in October of 1996, he issued a
message to the Pontifical Academy of Science reaffirming the Roman Catholic
Church's long-standing position on evolution: that it does not necessarily
conflict with Christianity. [xiii]
The Church's attitude to science today is no different from what it has
always been - that the expansion of human knowledge is in itself part of God's
work. Where the Church differs from science is that it considers 'knowledge
for the sake of knowledge' is not enough on its own, that knowledge is a
means to an end with that end being an increased awareness and understanding
of God.
The Church has also made clear that whilst it will condemn the misuse of
science to try to undermine Christian belief, evidentially supported
scientific findings cannot be ignored or denied; the challenge is for those
practicing Christianity to find ways of accommodating such scientific
findings into their beliefs.
[i] Quotations from St. Augustine are taken from St. Augustine, the Literal
Meaning of Genesis. vol. 1, Ancient Christian Writers., vol. 41. Translated
and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J. New York: Paulist Press, 1982.
[ii] Quoted in "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins from C. Freeman, "The
Closing of the Western Mind", London, Heinemann, 2002; in Freeman's book,
the quotation is given as an epigram with no reference to the original
source.
[iii] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confess.xi.xxxv.html - thanks to
Andrew Arensburger for finding that and also to John Wilkins for pointing
out that the original Latin phrase translated into "disease of curiosity" is
"morbo cupiditatis" which is more accurately translated as "morbid
curiosity" in the Imago version of Confessions.
[iv] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages
[v] Although universities in various forms existed in other forma in various
ancient civilisations, the first universities in Western Europe are
generally recognised as Bologna and Paris, both with their roots in monastic
schools.
[vi] Quoted in "Monasticism and Civilization" by John B. O'Connor, p90.
[vii] "The Rise of the Mediaeval Church". New York: Burt Franklin 1909
[viii] "The Medieval University", 1200-1400 New york: Sheed and Ward, 1961
[ix] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution
[x] Harvard University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-674-85433-0. (Paperback, 2001.
ISBN 0-674-00536-8
[xi] http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0033.html
[xii] Regnery Publishing, Inc. (May 2, 2005)
[xiii] http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html
Ken Shaw
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Church, of course, has never had a problem with Evolutionary Theory -
> from the writings of Augustine to the Church's total lack of opposition to
> the writings of Charles Darwin, the Church has never rejected any scientific
> theories that are accepted by the scientific community at large.
This of course is not correct. The official stance of the RCC is that
latex condoms do not present a barrier to HIV which is at variance
with an accepted scientific theory. As to the claim that the RCC has
never had a problem with the ToE ignoring Schonborn and his dalliance
with the ID movement is dishonest.
An FAQ of this sort should be balanced and written from a nuetral
point of view. This one is neither.
Ken
John Wilkins
...
> Alfred Von Harnack, for example, said of monastic education:
Adolph von Harnack, I think...
>
...
>
> Whilst the concept of a heliocentric universe had been voiced by various
> philosophers and scientists from ancient times, Copernicus was initially
Only *in* ancient times before Copernicus. Nobody had seriously proposed
it in the intervening period, so far as I know.
> reluctant to publish it as a formal theory, not out of fear of censure from
> the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues. It was actually
> the Church who convinced him to publish it - with particular encouragement
> from the Jesuits who had a long-time interest in Astronomy - to the extent
> that Copernicus dedicated his revolutionary book to the man who made this
> research possible, Pope Paul III.
...
> Galileo was never tortured nor is there any evidence that he was even
> threatened with torture - because he gave acceptable answers to his
> Inquistors, torture would not have been allowed under Church Law.
Are you sure about this? Stuff I have seen states that he was shown the
instruments of torture, and given this is during the height of the
Counter-Reformation, and the Inquisition, I think he may very well have
been subject to torture if declared a heretic.
...
> Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly career, has
> developed a compelling argument that in fact it was important aspects of the
> Christian worldview that accounted for why it was in the West that science
> enjoyed the success it did as a self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian
> cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were
> burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of science.
> Jaki extends this thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian,
> Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki explains,
> science suffered a "stillbirth"
Fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc?
...
> The Church, of course, has never had a problem with Evolutionary Theory -
> from the writings of Augustine to the Church's total lack of opposition to
> the writings of Charles Darwin, the Church has never rejected any scientific
> theories that are accepted by the scientific community at large.
Augustine was not an evolutionist. Nor was he a special creationist.
Neither term has any meaning before around 1670 for the latter and 1745
for the former.
As to opposition, there was considerable opposition in the Church in the
1890s, in a series of conferences in Belgium attended by Catholic
biologists, clerics, philosophers and laymen, although the bulk accepted
it as scientifically verified. One outcome of that movement, though, was
Friedrich Wasmann's 1906 book in German which argued that only limited
evolution (within "natural species") was possible (so "Linnaean species"
could evolve, but not the whole common descent thing). It had a Nihil
Obstat.
Wasmann, Erich. 1910. Modern Biology and the Theory of Evolution.
Translated by A. M. Buchanan. 3rd ed. London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trübner. Original edition, 1906.
See
Paul, Harry W. 1979. The edge of contingency: French Catholic reaction
to scientific change from Darwin to Duhem. Gainesville: University
Presses of Florida: A University of Florida Book.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Pete G.
news:567qrsF271gfkU1@mid.
>
> They also often show a complete lack of knowledge of what actually caused
> the problems between Galileo and the Church which is typical of the total
> lack of public knowledge of how much the Catholic Church has directly
> contributed to the development of modern science.
Yup, I remember all those headlines:
''Pope gave me idea for Relativity', says grateful Einstein';
'New element to be named 'Catholicium' in honour of Vatican discoverer';
'Leo XIII's theory of 'plate tectonics' finally vindicated, say geologists';
'Holy See spending billions in search for extra-terrestrial life, Pontiff
reveals'
You sad, sad cretin.
P.
loua...@yahoo.com
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A while back, I got involved in one of the regular debates here on the
> relationship between the Catholic Church and Science. Due to what I regarded
> as a wide misunderstanding of the Church's attititude, I suggested that a
> FAQ for TO might be appropriate and this was promptly kicked back to me -
> "Why don't you do it then!" :)
>
> My first attempt at this is given below for debate and discussion.
But wasn't Galileo's book about heliocentrism put on the Index of
Prohibited Books for a couple of centuries? That's hardly withholding
judgment until all the facts are in.
Also, how long was Galileo under house arrest?
Never having been Catholic myself (grin) I have no dog in this fight.
That was the only point that jumped out at me as a problem and you
have lots of good material.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Ken Shaw" <ksha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174322751.8...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 19, 10:08 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Church, of course, has never had a problem with Evolutionary Theory -
>> from the writings of Augustine to the Church's total lack of opposition
>> to
>> the writings of Charles Darwin, the Church has never rejected any
>> scientific
>> theories that are accepted by the scientific community at large.
>
> This of course is not correct. The official stance of the RCC is that
> latex condoms do not present a barrier to HIV which is at variance
> with an accepted scientific theory.
It is no such thing. An ill-informed remark by one Cardinal does not
represent the Church's official stance on anything.
> As to the claim that the RCC has
> never had a problem with the ToE ignoring Schonborn and his dalliance
> with the ID movement is dishonest.
You mean Schonborn who said " 'The Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin is
one of the greatest works in the history of ideas." and "Christian teaching
about evolution is not an alternative to evolution theory." and when asked
"Does God belong in biology class?" replied "The question of the Creator
belongs in religion class."
<irony> Yeah, I'm sure those opinions sit very comfortable with the ID
movement </irony>
> An FAQ of this sort should be balanced and written from a nuetral
> point of view. This one is neither.
So make accurate suggestions for changes to make it more balanced and
neutral.
Robert Grumbine
loua...@yahoo.com <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 19, 11:08 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
><alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A while back, I got involved in one of the regular debates here on the
>> relationship between the Catholic Church and Science. Due to what I regarded
>> as a wide misunderstanding of the Church's attititude, I suggested that a
>> FAQ for TO might be appropriate and this was promptly kicked back to me -
>> "Why don't you do it then!" :)
>>
>> My first attempt at this is given below for debate and discussion.
>
>But wasn't Galileo's book about heliocentrism put on the Index of
>Prohibited Books for a couple of centuries? That's hardly withholding
>judgment until all the facts are in.
Until the 20th century, iirc, around 350 years.
>Also, how long was Galileo under house arrest?
The rest of his life (a twenty-ish years, iirc). He did publish
the book in my .sig during that time -- with vetting at all
stages by The Church.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
TomS
<567qrsF...@mid.individual.net>, alwaysaskingquestions stated..."
>
>A while back, I got involved in one of the regular debates here on the
>relationship between the Catholic Church and Science. Due to what I regarded
>as a wide misunderstanding of the Church's attititude, I suggested that a
>FAQ for TO might be appropriate and this was promptly kicked back to me -
>"Why don't you do it then!" :)
>
>My first attempt at this is given below for debate and discussion.
I suggest that you look at this recent book:
Mariano Artigas, Thomas F. Glick, and Rafael A. Martinez
Negotiating Darwin: The Vatican Confronts Evolution, 1877-1902
Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 2006
ISBN 080188389X
It discusses in detail the cases of six Catholics who supported
evolution and their relationships with the official Church:
Raffaello Caverni
Dalmace Leroy
John A. Zahm
Geremia Bonomelli
John C. Hedley
St. George Jackson Mivart
--
---Tom S.
"...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)
John Wilkins
> "On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:08:28 -0000, in article
> <567qrsF...@mid.individual.net>, alwaysaskingquestions stated..."
> >
> >A while back, I got involved in one of the regular debates here on the
> >relationship between the Catholic Church and Science. Due to what I regarded
> >as a wide misunderstanding of the Church's attititude, I suggested that a
> >FAQ for TO might be appropriate and this was promptly kicked back to me -
> >"Why don't you do it then!" :)
> >
> >My first attempt at this is given below for debate and discussion.
> [...snip...]
>
> I suggest that you look at this recent book:
>
> Mariano Artigas, Thomas F. Glick, and Rafael A. Martinez
> Negotiating Darwin: The Vatican Confronts Evolution, 1877-1902
> Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 2006
> ISBN 080188389X
>
> It discusses in detail the cases of six Catholics who supported
> evolution and their relationships with the official Church:
>
> Raffaello Caverni
> Dalmace Leroy
> John A. Zahm
> Geremia Bonomelli
> John C. Hedley
> St. George Jackson Mivart
Ooh, shiny! I'll get a copy...
alwaysaskingquestions
"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hv95wc.rkgi1jac9jp4N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
...
>> Alfred Von Harnack, for example, said of monastic education:
> Adolph von Harnack, I think...
Correction noted.
>
...
>
>> Whilst the concept of a heliocentric universe had been voiced by various
>> philosophers and scientists from ancient times, Copernicus was initially
> Only *in* ancient times before Copernicus. Nobody had seriously
> proposed it in the intervening period, so far as I know.
Fair enough.
[...]
...
>> Galileo was never tortured nor is there any evidence that he was even
>> threatened with torture - because he gave acceptable answers to his
> > Inquistors, torture would not have been allowed under Church Law.
> Are you sure about this?
I have taken most of this from
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0033.html and
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/GalileoAffair.html. I have
some hesitation in using these sources as they could be argued to be less
than neutral about the matter but I'm struggling to find neutral detailed
accounts online.
> Stuff I have seen states that he was shown
> the instruments of torture, and given this is during the height of the
> Counter-Reformation, and the Inquisition, I think he may very well have
> been subject to torture if declared a heretic.
According to the first link above, 'While it's true that a decree issued by
Pope Urban VIII instructed that Galileo "should be questioned as to his
intentions and that he should be menaced with torture," no torture was ever
carried out' and it also points out that there is no mention of maltreatment
in any of Galileo's subsequent letters or essays.
...
>> Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly career, has
>> developed a compelling argument that in fact it was important aspects of
>> the
>> Christian worldview that accounted for why it was in the West that
>> science
>> enjoyed the success it did as a self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian
>> cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were
>> burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of
>> science.
>> Jaki extends this thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian,
>> Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki
>> explains,
>> science suffered a "stillbirth"
> Fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Possibly, but I haven't seen any other plausible theory why so much of
scientific advancement over the last millennium took place in the Christian
word particularly when one considers the great philosophical ideas promoted
in some of those other cultures in ancient times.
>> The Church, of course, has never had a problem with Evolutionary Theory -
>> from the writings of Augustine to the Church's total lack of opposition
>> to
>> the writings of Charles Darwin, the Church has never rejected any
>> scientific
>> theories that are accepted by the scientific community at large.
> Augustine was not an evolutionist. Nor was he a special creationist.
> Neither term has any meaning before around 1670 for the latter and 1745
> for the former.
I'm not arguing that he was an evolutionist in modern terms but his
explanation of Genesis certainly left room for evolution. The only real
difference between his ideas and Darwinism - is that he thought all the
future evolutionary changes were stored up from the start, not through
mutation and natural selection; that, of course, is a substantial difference
but in the context of Augustine's time and the limited scientific knowledge
then, I think that was very advanced thinking.
> As to opposition, there was considerable opposition in the Church in the
> 1890s, in a series of conferences in Belgium attended by Catholic
> biologists, clerics, philosophers and laymen, although the bulk accepted
>it as scientifically verified.
I think your last comment that "the bulk accepted it" shows that it wasn't
significant opposition. I'm also not aware of the Vatican formally opposing
Darwin at any stage.
> One outcome of that movement, though, was
> Friedrich Wasmann's 1906 book in German which argued that
> only limited evolution (within "natural species") was possible
> (so "Linnaean species" could evolve, but not the whole common
> descent thing).>
A book by one author is hardly representative of the Church's overall
stance - indeed the opposite could be argued that the paucity of written
objections to Darwin is a good illustration of how insignificant the
opposition actually was.
> It had a Nihil Obstat.
That's of no particular significance, it only means that a Church censor
read it and found nothing in it that contradicted Catholic doctrine or
morals; the book was written at a time when the Church had a mainly neutral
stance on Darwin so any book arguing the case for Darwin either way was
unlikely to be frowned upon by the Church unless it specifically entered
into doctrinal matters - I doubt if a similar book would receive any form of
Imprimatur nowadays
alwaysaskingquestions
"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:12vtheb...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <1174324023....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> loua...@yahoo.com <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Mar 19, 11:08 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>><alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> A while back, I got involved in one of the regular debates here on the
>>> relationship between the Catholic Church and Science. Due to what I
>>> regarded
>>> as a wide misunderstanding of the Church's attititude, I suggested that
>>> a
>>> FAQ for TO might be appropriate and this was promptly kicked back to
>>> me -
>>> "Why don't you do it then!" :)
>>>
>>> My first attempt at this is given below for debate and discussion.
>>
>>But wasn't Galileo's book about heliocentrism put on the Index of
>>Prohibited Books for a couple of centuries? That's hardly withholding
>>judgment until all the facts are in.
>
> Until the 20th century, iirc, around 350 years.
1835 to be precise - a point that should be included in my FAQ.
alwaysaskingquestions
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:184325260.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
> "On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:08:28 -0000, in article
> <567qrsF...@mid.individual.net>, alwaysaskingquestions stated..."
>>
>>A while back, I got involved in one of the regular debates here on the
>>relationship between the Catholic Church and Science. Due to what I
>>regarded
>>as a wide misunderstanding of the Church's attititude, I suggested that a
>>FAQ for TO might be appropriate and this was promptly kicked back to me -
>>"Why don't you do it then!" :)
>>
>>My first attempt at this is given below for debate and discussion.
> [...snip...]
>
> I suggest that you look at this recent book:
>
> Mariano Artigas, Thomas F. Glick, and Rafael A. Martinez
> Negotiating Darwin: The Vatican Confronts Evolution, 1877-1902
> Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 2006
> ISBN 080188389X
>
> It discusses in detail the cases of six Catholics who supported
> evolution and their relationships with the official Church:
>
> Raffaello Caverni
> Dalmace Leroy
> John A. Zahm
> Geremia Bonomelli
> John C. Hedley
> St. George Jackson Mivart
Any comments on the overal thrust of the book before I fork out £32 on it ?
alwaysaskingquestions
"Pete G." <Pe...@com.net> wrote in message
news:LezLh.5176$pP5....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
If you could point out errors in what I have written then *you* might not
come across as a sad, sad cretin.
Perplexed in Peoria
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:567qrsF...@mid.individual.net...
> A while back, I got involved in one of the regular debates here on the
> relationship between the Catholic Church and Science. Due to what I regarded
> as a wide misunderstanding of the Church's attititude, I suggested that a
> FAQ for TO might be appropriate and this was promptly kicked back to me -
> "Why don't you do it then!" :)
>
> My first attempt at this is given below for debate and discussion.
>
> I would ask only that people debate this in a serious way, that hopefully we
> can avoid the slanging matches that inevitably seem to arise with this topic
> and maybe tease out an appropriate agreement on the accuracy or otherwise of
> what I have said..
Ok. It seems to me to be an appropriate subject. And while I agree with the
main point that the RCC is not generally hostile to either science or evolution,
I do agree with most respondents that this is not an article with a NPOV.
Regarding overall structure, I would say that the Church's current position
is much more important and relevant than the history. So I would suggest
expanding that section and moving it to the front. Cut back on the size of
the historical portions. A discussion of Galileo is appropriate, but when
you start bringing in Augustine, you also need to discuss the burning of the
Alexandria library if you wish to seem at all balanced. And what about Bruno?
[snip entire historical section]
> The Church Today
> -------------------------
> Due mainly to changes in the Western education system, particularly in the
> increased secularisation of education, the Church has played a much less
> prominent role at the forefront of scientific advancement although have been
> notable exceptions such as Belgian priest Georges Lemaītre, the first
> person to promote the Big Bang Theory in 1927.
>
> Nevertheless, the Church continues to support scientific endeavour; one
> example of this is the Church's refusal to support the Intelligent Design
> movement. It is also worth noting that in the current US environment with
> constant battles between the ID movement and science as to what should be
> taught in schools, there has been no criticism of any kind from the
> scientific community about the standard of science - including biology -
> taught in Catholic run schools; indeed, there seems to be a general
> acceptance that the quality of teaching is probably better than that in
> public schools.
>
> The Church, of course, has never had a problem with Evolutionary Theory -
> from the writings of Augustine to the Church's total lack of opposition to
> the writings of Charles Darwin, the Church has never rejected any scientific
> theories that are accepted by the scientific community at large.
Uh. I'm not so sure. There was considerable semi-official opposition to
Darwinism. See, for example, the entries on evolution in the pre-1950 editions
of the English language "Catholic Encyclopedia" (available online). You
should also mention that most of this semi-official opposition ended with
an encyclical by John XXIII (I think. 1960ish. Look it up.)
Also, a FAQ should at least mention Cardinal Schonnborn (sp?), if only to
minimize his importance. And some discussion of the theological problems
which evolution presents with regard to doctrines related to the Fall should
at least be mentioned. Also, it seems to me that while the Church definitely
now embraces common descent, it has some problems with pure Darwinism and takes
a decidedly TE stance.
> Recognition of the Church's attitude to science is perhaps best illustrated
> by the words of Pope John Paul II when in October of 1996, he issued a
> message to the Pontifical Academy of Science reaffirming the Roman Catholic
> Church's long-standing position on evolution: that it does not necessarily
> conflict with Christianity. [xiii]
>
> The Church's attitude to science today is no different from what it has
> always been - that the expansion of human knowledge is in itself part of God's
> work. Where the Church differs from science is that it considers 'knowledge
> for the sake of knowledge' is not enough on its own, that knowledge is a
> means to an end with that end being an increased awareness and understanding
> of God.
>
> The Church has also made clear that whilst it will condemn the misuse of
> science to try to undermine Christian belief, evidentially supported
> scientific findings cannot be ignored or denied; the challenge is for those
> practicing Christianity to find ways of accommodating such scientific
> findings into their beliefs.
Balance would require at least some kind of raised eyebrows at that word
'misuse', with the implicit question being who determines what is 'misuse'
and what is 'proper use' of science.
I am an ex-Catholic who has frequently defended the Church in this forum from
what strike me as attacks based on ignorance. But I have to say that your
history glosses over some severe problems. And while there may be a truce
between Church and Science today, that peace may not last forever. Each
institution pursues what it sees as its own vital interests. Those interests
have conflicted in the past, and they may do so again.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:GlCLh.14895$uo3....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:567qrsF...@mid.individual.net...
>> A while back, I got involved in one of the regular debates here on the
>> relationship between the Catholic Church and Science. Due to what I
>> regarded
>> as a wide misunderstanding of the Church's attititude, I suggested that a
>> FAQ for TO might be appropriate and this was promptly kicked back to me -
>> "Why don't you do it then!" :)
>>
>> My first attempt at this is given below for debate and discussion.
>>
>> I would ask only that people debate this in a serious way, that hopefully
>> we
>> can avoid the slanging matches that inevitably seem to arise with this
>> topic
>> and maybe tease out an appropriate agreement on the accuracy or otherwise
>> of
>> what I have said..
>
> Ok. It seems to me to be an appropriate subject. And while I agree with
> the
> main point that the RCC is not generally hostile to either science or
> evolution,
> I do agree with most respondents that this is not an article with a NPOV.
As a practicing Catholic, I'm obviously in danger of losing the NPOV but I'd
like to think that the facts I quoted are accurate though I can see that
there is some disagreement about the Church's general attitude to Evolution
up to about the 1950's, perhaps I'm looking at that through rose-tinted
glasses.
> Regarding overall structure, I would say that the Church's current
> position
> is much more important and relevant than the history. So I would suggest
> expanding that section and moving it to the front. Cut back on the size
> of
> the historical portions.
My thinking was that it was important to show that the Church's attitude to
science has been consistent throughout history but I take your point.
> A discussion of Galileo is appropriate, but when
> you start bringing in Augustine, you also need to discuss the burning of
> the
> Alexandria library if you wish to seem at all balanced.
Which would make the history bit even longer :(
I agree though, that I've dwelled on Augustine far too much - especially the
suggestion that he promoted some form of evolution which is open to debate.
>And what about Bruno?
I left poor Bruno out as, notwithstanding his horrific execution, it seems
to be generally accepted that his dispute with the Church was really on
doctrinal grounds with science only playing a very minor part in it; on
reflection, he probably does deserve a mention.
[..]
>> The Church, of course, has never had a problem with Evolutionary Theory -
>> from the writings of Augustine to the Church's total lack of opposition
>> to
>> the writings of Charles Darwin, the Church has never rejected any
>> scientific
>> theories that are accepted by the scientific community at large.
>
> Uh. I'm not so sure. There was considerable semi-official opposition to
> Darwinism. See, for example, the entries on evolution in the pre-1950
> editions
> of the English language "Catholic Encyclopedia" (available online).
Good suggestion but I can't find the pre-1950 editions online - have you got
a link?
>You
> should also mention that most of this semi-official opposition ended with
> an encyclical by John XXIII (I think. 1960ish. Look it up.)
Yes, I agree that I should cut down on the earlier history and expand more
on the last 50 years or so.
> Also, a FAQ should at least mention Cardinal Schonnborn (sp?), if only to
> minimize his importance.
I had though about this and decided to leave him out but I take your point
about minimising his importance.
> And some discussion of the theological problems
> which evolution presents with regard to doctrines related to the Fall
> should
> at least be mentioned. Also, it seems to me that while the Church
> definitely
> now embraces common descent, it has some problems with pure Darwinism and
> takes
> a decidedly TE stance.
Good suggestion - if I can do it without getting too theological :)
[...]
>> The Church has also made clear that whilst it will condemn the misuse of
>> science to try to undermine Christian belief, evidentially supported
>> scientific findings cannot be ignored or denied; the challenge is for
>> those
>> practicing Christianity to find ways of accommodating such scientific
>> findings into their beliefs.
>
> Balance would require at least some kind of raised eyebrows at that word
> 'misuse', with the implicit question being who determines what is 'misuse'
> and what is 'proper use' of science.
Fair comment, I should have said something along the lines of "what it
perceives as misuse ..". At the same time, I think I should bring out the
point that the Church's stance on trying to use science to disprove God is
compatible with the professed view of science that science has no comment to
make either way on the existence of God.
>
> I am an ex-Catholic who has frequently defended the Church in this forum
> from
> what strike me as attacks based on ignorance. But I have to say that your
> history glosses over some severe problems.
Any specific problems - apart from the ones touched on above - that you
think such a FAQ should expand upon?
> And while there may be a truce
> between Church and Science today, that peace may not last forever. Each
> institution pursues what it sees as its own vital interests. Those
> interests
> have conflicted in the past, and they may do so again.
Hmmm, maybe some discussion on the underlying potential conflict of
interests would be a much better introduction to the article than the one
I've done above.
Ken Shaw
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Ken Shaw" <kshaw1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174322751.8...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 19, 10:08 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The Church, of course, has never had a problem with Evolutionary Theory -
> >> from the writings of Augustine to the Church's total lack of opposition
> >> to
> >> the writings of Charles Darwin, the Church has never rejected any
> >> scientific
> >> theories that are accepted by the scientific community at large.
>
> > This of course is not correct. The official stance of the RCC is that
> > latex condoms do not present a barrier to HIV which is at variance
> > with an accepted scientific theory.
>
> It is no such thing. An ill-informed remark by one Cardinal does not
> represent the Church's official stance on anything.
>
Actually it is a number of RCC officials in official positions making
the claim:
President of the Pontifical Council for the Family Cardinal Alfonso
Lopez Trujillo
Archbishop of Lagos, Nigeria Cardinal Anthony Olubunmi Okogie
Are two cardinals who have made the claim. One has many HIV+
parishoners and the other has direct reponsibility for issues
regarding families.
Then there is whoever forced the Spanish Bishops to retract there
exceedingly weak pro condom statement.
Of course the fact the these claims are being spread by RCC media and
members of the clergy also give them the imprimatur of being official.
> > As to the claim that the RCC has
> > never had a problem with the ToE ignoring Schonborn and his dalliance
> > with the ID movement is dishonest.
>
> You mean Schonborn who said " 'The Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin is
> one of the greatest works in the history of ideas." and "Christian teaching
> about evolution is not an alternative to evolution theory." and when asked
> "Does God belong in biology class?" replied "The question of the Creator
> belongs in religion class."
>
> <irony> Yeah, I'm sure those opinions sit very comfortable with the ID
> movement </irony>
Yes, Schonborn backed away from what he first said. That is why I
called it a dalliance. It doesn't change the fact that he gave aid and
comfort to the ID movement and has to be covered in an honest NPOV
FAQ.
>
> > An FAQ of this sort should be balanced and written from a nuetral
> > point of view. This one is neither.
>
> So make accurate suggestions for changes to make it more balanced and
> neutral.
Admit the RCC has been and is at present on the wrong side of some
scientific issues. Do not ignore the late 19th century RCC's treatment
of the ToE. Do not try and sugar coat the RCC's treatment of Galileo,
state that he was threatened with torture as the historical record
clearly indicates, that he spent the rest of his life under house
arrest and that his book on heliocentrism was on the Index of
Prohibited Books for centuries.Finally acknowledge that the RCC is not
a monolithic organization with no differences and acknowledge that
that includes a wide variety of stances of science and the ToE.
Ken
Perplexed in Peoria
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:568ci5F...@mid.individual.net...
Your lack of NPOV is showing ;-)
> but I take your point.
Good.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html
Oh, I'm sure you are drawing a variety of suggestions from other parties. ;-)
My advice is to research them using a neutral source and include the ones that
seem most relevant and fact-based. Or, as I suggested, just eliminate much
of the apologetics which appears in your initial draft.
> > And while there may be a truce
> > between Church and Science today, that peace may not last forever. Each
> > institution pursues what it sees as its own vital interests. Those
> > interests
> > have conflicted in the past, and they may do so again.
>
> Hmmm, maybe some discussion on the underlying potential conflict of
> interests would be a much better introduction to the article than the one
> I've done above.
Hmmm. Maybe. Try it and see if it works.
Faux_Pseudo
>> Mariano Artigas, Thomas F. Glick, and Rafael A. Martinez
>> Negotiating Darwin: The Vatican Confronts Evolution, 1877-1902
>> Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 2006
>> ISBN 080188389X
>>
>> It discusses in detail the cases of six Catholics who supported
>> evolution and their relationships with the official Church:
>>
>> Raffaello Caverni
>> Dalmace Leroy
>> John A. Zahm
>> Geremia Bonomelli
>> John C. Hedley
>> St. George Jackson Mivart
>
> Any comments on the overal thrust of the book before I fork out £32 on it ?
Amazon has used copies in stock.
--
=()==()==()==()==()- http://fauxascii.com
\ \ \ \ \ \ ASCII artist
:F_P:-O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O-
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Frank J
> Andrew Arensburger for finding that and also to John Wilkins for pointing
> out that the original Latin phrase translated into "disease of curiosity" is
> "morbo cupiditatis" which is more accurately translated as "morbid
> curiosity" in the Imago version of Confessions.
>
> [iv]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages
>
> [v] Although universities in various forms existed in other forma in various
> ancient civilisations, the first universities in Western Europe are
> generally recognised as Bologna and Paris, both with their roots in monastic
> schools.
>
> [vi] Quoted in "Monasticism and Civilization" by John B. O'Connor, p90.
>
> [vii] "The Rise of the Mediaeval Church". New York: Burt Franklin 1909
>
> [viii] "The Medieval University", 1200-1400 New york: Sheed and Ward, 1961
>
> [ix]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution
>
> [x] Harvard University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-674-85433-0. (Paperback, 2001.
> ISBN 0-674-00536-8
>
> [xi]http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0033.html
>
> [xii] Regnery Publishing, Inc. (May 2, 2005)
>
> [xiii]http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html
My 2c on the current position:
As a former Catholic (childhood only) with many Catholic family &
friends, I was very impressed by Pope John Paul II's 1996 statement on
evolution. Particularly the very significant part about how the
evidence for evolution is "neither sought nor fabricated." That choice
of words strongly suggests that he was aware that anti-evolution
arguments, in contrast, are always sought and fabricated. Therefore, I
was quite disappointed by Cardinal Schonborn's 2005 assertion that
Pope John Paul II's contribution was insignificant. Also disappointing
were statements by Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders, who
missed the opportunity to straighten out the Cardinal's
misconceptions, which were caused by the influence of ID activists who
conveniently waited until Pope John Paul II was no longer around to
defend himself.
While the church's position is clear, which is that "we are not
accidents" but "it's still evolution," the recent trend is to
emphasize the first part at the expense of the second. I understand
that God, not science, is their business, but doesn't everyone over
the age of ~7 already know that the church rejects the possibility
that we are an accident of * anything *, evolution or not? Why on
Earth does that bear repeating? Especially when it is the other part -
that the church accepts evolution as science defines it, though not as
many atheists * and all anti-evolution activists * define it - which
is still misunderstood by much (most?) of their congregation.
Evolution does not stand or fall by popularity contest, but I really
thought that by now, at least the Catholic Church, if not most
Christian religions would have taken a clear, unequivocal stand, not
just for evolution and science, but against anti-evolution activists.
alwaysaskingquestions
Checking more into the background on this I found:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tru/tru_01familysafesex1.html#b20
I refer you in particular to the sections on "The Same Concern, From
Non-Ecclesiastical Circles" and "The Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence
on Condom Effectiveness For Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention.
A research programm involving US Agency for International Development
(USAID), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). found that
the failure rate for consoms against STD is about 15%.
Quite apart from the fact that these Cardinals are not purporting to give an
official Church position, their comments about the risks of overdependence
on condoms in the face of those finding can hardly be described as being "at
variance with an accepted scientific theory." - unless, of course, that you
want to claim that USAID, FDA, CDC, NIH, Dr. Helen Singer-Kaplan, the Los
Angeles Times, UCLA and Dr. John Wilks are also at variance with scientific
theory
> Then there is whoever forced the Spanish Bishops to retract there
> exceedingly weak pro condom statement.
The Church's position on condoms is on moral grounds; nothwithstanding the
comments of the two Caradinals on the effectiveness of condoms which is a
secondary issue; whether or not you agree with them - and FWIW, I don't - it
is nothing to do with science.
>> > As to the claim that the RCC has
>> > never had a problem with the ToE ignoring Schonborn and his dalliance
>> > with the ID movement is dishonest.
>>
>> You mean Schonborn who said " 'The Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin
>> is
>> one of the greatest works in the history of ideas." and "Christian
>> teaching
>> about evolution is not an alternative to evolution theory." and when
>> asked
>> "Does God belong in biology class?" replied "The question of the Creator
>> belongs in religion class."
>>
>> <irony> Yeah, I'm sure those opinions sit very comfortable with the ID
>> movement </irony>
>
> Yes, Schonborn backed away from what he first said. That is why I
> called it a dalliance.
A 'dalliance' is hardly a good example on which to indict the whole Chucrch
>It doesn't change the fact that he gave aid and
> comfort to the ID movement and has to be covered in an honest NPOV
> FAQ.
I've agreed elsewhere that it should be covered.
>> > An FAQ of this sort should be balanced and written from a nuetral
>> > point of view. This one is neither.
>>
>> So make accurate suggestions for changes to make it more balanced and
>> neutral.
>
> Admit the RCC has been and is at present on the wrong side of some
> scientific issues.
Can you suggest any other issues where the Church has been on the wrong
side?
> Do not ignore the late 19th century RCC's treatment
> of the ToE.
A number of other posters have referred to that, I'm looking further at it.
> Do not try and sugar coat the RCC's treatment of Galileo,
> state that he was threatened with torture as the historical record
> clearly indicates, that he spent the rest of his life under house
> arrest and that his book on heliocentrism was on the Index of
> Prohibited Books for centuries.
Already agreed that those specific points should be included.
> Finally acknowledge that the RCC is not
> a monolithic organization with no differences and acknowledge that
> that includes a wide variety of stances of science and the ToE.
You're right, it's not a monolithic organisation, but when analysing its
attitude to science, I think that has to be based on the Church's official
stance combined with the broad thrust of attitudes within the Church rather
than what was said or done by individuals or minority groups who were in no
real position to represent or influence the Church's attitude.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1174344374....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
[..]
Points about John Paul II and Schonborn noted, this is definitely an area to
be covered when I get around to revising this proposed FAQ.
> Evolution does not stand or fall by popularity contest, but I really
> thought that by now, at least the Catholic Church, if not most
> Christian religions would have taken a clear, unequivocal stand, not
> just for evolution and science, but against anti-evolution activists.
I suspect - though I don't have any evidence for this - that however much
the Church disapproves of fundamentalism, it is reluctant to publicly
condemn *any* religious group nowadays because of its previous adoption of a
'holier than thou' stance in its attitude to other Christian denominations.
Also, it has enough on its plate trying to cope with its own wrongdoings in
recent years without getting embroiled in the wrongdoings of other religious
groups.
John Harshman
Giordano Bruno? Now he was burned at the stake, unlike Galileo. And the
charges against him were many, nor was any of them specifically to do
with heliocentrism. But if I were Copernicus, that would have given me
pause. Shouldn't Bruno at least be mentioned here?
John Harshman
OK, Giordano published his works long after Copernicus. Still, bit of
persecution of science, eh?
loua...@yahoo.com
> >And what about Bruno?
>
> I left poor Bruno out as, notwithstanding his horrific execution, it seems
> to be generally accepted that his dispute with the Church was really on
> doctrinal grounds with science only playing a very minor part in it; on
> reflection, he probably does deserve a mention.
As with any FAQ around here, addressing what people -think- happened
is as important as addressing what did happen. I can't fault your
overall tone, but resist the impulse to soft-pedal things like
Galileo's life imprisonment. Being frank is more important than trying
to make them look perfect.
I get it that the RCC is not mindlessly anti-science and in many cases
has done pro-science things. But bottom line, it is a hierarchical
organization and it does assert the right (even if it uses it
sparingly) to tell its followers what to think. That's going to rub a
lot of people the wrong way no matter what.
wf3h
alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
>
> I suspect - though I don't have any evidence for this - that however much
> the Church disapproves of fundamentalism, it is reluctant to publicly
> condemn *any* religious group nowadays because of its previous adoption of a
> 'holier than thou' stance in its attitude to other Christian denominations.
> Also, it has enough on its plate trying to cope with its own wrongdoings in
> recent years without getting embroiled in the wrongdoings of other religious
> groups.
it certainly doesn't condemn the religious right...but regularly slams
the religious left. leonardo boff; the head of the jesuit journal
'america', etc., come to mind...
John Wilkins
> >>Whilst the concept of a heliocentric universe had been voiced by various
> >>philosophers and scientists from ancient times, Copernicus was initially
> >
> >
> > Only *in* ancient times before Copernicus. Nobody had seriously proposed
> > it in the intervening period, so far as I know.
>
> Giordano Bruno? Now he was burned at the stake, unlike Galileo. And the
> charges against him were many, nor was any of them specifically to do
> with heliocentrism. But if I were Copernicus, that would have given me
> pause. Shouldn't Bruno at least be mentioned here?
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)
Galileo Galilee (1564-1642)
Bruno was not tried because he was a heliocentrist, but because his
theology was heretical.
John Wilkins
Of course not. Being shown the instruments of torture would be
sufficient threat. But they were shown for a reason - if you persisted
in heretical claims, these instruments would be *used*, and everybody
knew it.
> ...
>
> >> Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly career, has
> >> developed a compelling argument that in fact it was important aspects of
> >> the
> >> Christian worldview that accounted for why it was in the West that
> >> science
> >> enjoyed the success it did as a self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian
> >> cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were
> >> burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of
> >> science.
> >> Jaki extends this thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian,
> >> Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki
> >> explains,
> >> science suffered a "stillbirth"
>
> > Fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc?
>
> Possibly, but I haven't seen any other plausible theory why so much of
> scientific advancement over the last millennium took place in the Christian
> word particularly when one considers the great philosophical ideas promoted
> in some of those other cultures in ancient times.
It's pretty simple to my mind - economics. Being a disparate region with
many political entities, trade was a crucial driver of technological
change along with military engineering. Hence the crucial elements for
science - printing, trade of books and so forth, and the development of
methematics that could be used for complex calculations - were in place
there and no other place. Had it not developed in the Christian west, it
might have developed in some other place later, and we would now be
wondering why science was Confucian and not Christian.
>
> >> The Church, of course, has never had a problem with Evolutionary Theory -
> >> from the writings of Augustine to the Church's total lack of opposition
> >> to
> >> the writings of Charles Darwin, the Church has never rejected any
> >> scientific
> >> theories that are accepted by the scientific community at large.
>
> > Augustine was not an evolutionist. Nor was he a special creationist.
> > Neither term has any meaning before around 1670 for the latter and 1745
> > for the former.
>
> I'm not arguing that he was an evolutionist in modern terms but his
> explanation of Genesis certainly left room for evolution. The only real
> difference between his ideas and Darwinism - is that he thought all the
> future evolutionary changes were stored up from the start, not through
> mutation and natural selection; that, of course, is a substantial difference
> but in the context of Augustine's time and the limited scientific knowledge
> then, I think that was very advanced thinking.
Well that view was pretty old. Arguably Aristotle held it, and certainly
Epicurus did. I think it might also be in the Stoics.
>
> > As to opposition, there was considerable opposition in the Church in the
> > 1890s, in a series of conferences in Belgium attended by Catholic
> > biologists, clerics, philosophers and laymen, although the bulk accepted
> >it as scientifically verified.
>
> I think your last comment that "the bulk accepted it" shows that it wasn't
> significant opposition. I'm also not aware of the Vatican formally opposing
> Darwin at any stage.
The actions of the Vatican are not the sole marker of Catholic belief -
the actions of Catholic specialists is more important here. Yes, most of
them accepted it. But a *substantial portion* (I think Paul says around
1/3rd) opposed it, and that opposition got more strident as Haeckel's
monism became the leading intellectual view from 1900-1910 or so.
>
> > One outcome of that movement, though, was
> > Friedrich Wasmann's 1906 book in German which argued that
> > only limited evolution (within "natural species") was possible
> > (so "Linnaean species" could evolve, but not the whole common
> > descent thing).>
>
> A book by one author is hardly representative of the Church's overall
> stance - indeed the opposite could be argued that the paucity of written
> objections to Darwin is a good illustration of how insignificant the
> opposition actually was.
It's not the only one, just the most widely read. And it was still being
promoted in Catholic Churches in Australia in the 1960s, which is how I
came by a copy.
>
> > It had a Nihil Obstat.
>
> That's of no particular significance, it only means that a Church censor
> read it and found nothing in it that contradicted Catholic doctrine or
> morals; the book was written at a time when the Church had a mainly neutral
> stance on Darwin so any book arguing the case for Darwin either way was
> unlikely to be frowned upon by the Church unless it specifically entered
> into doctrinal matters - I doubt if a similar book would receive any form of
> Imprimatur nowadays
So you concede that Catholic teaching at the time was not opposed to
anti-Darwinian ideas?
Googler
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1174344374....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> [..]
>
> Points about John Paul II and Schonborn noted, this is definitely an area to
> be covered when I get around to revising this proposed FAQ.
First, let me thank you for working on this project, despite the
opposition and unsupported statements of the anti-religion
fundamentalists.
Second, when you cover the Schoenborn statements - which you should do
- please include the responses from the Vatican's own 'chief
scientist' and also the pertinent public statements in the official
Vatican newspaper.
Third, the 1996 statement of John Paul II on evolution should be
presented contextually and not as some sort of novel departure. You
might also consider the statements about evolution - made at about
the same time as well as earlier - of then Cardinal Ratzinger. IMHO
these state the Church's position much more clearly.
>
> > Evolution does not stand or fall by popularity contest, but I really
> > thought that by now, at least the Catholic Church, if not most
> > Christian religions would have taken a clear, unequivocal stand, not
> > just for evolution and science, but against anti-evolution activists.
>
> I suspect - though I don't have any evidence for this - that however much
> the Church disapproves of fundamentalism, it is reluctant to publicly
> condemn *any* religious group nowadays because of its previous adoption of a
> 'holier than thou' stance in its attitude to other Christian denominations.
Actually, the Church *has* issued statements on Christian
fundamentalism - insofar as it applies to Biblical interpretation -
and has come down soundly against it. In fact, the essential
fundamentalist doctrine of sola scriptura is against Catholic
teaching, so the Church really could not go any other way.
I wonder how you could have concluded that the Church is "reluctant"
to "condemn" what it considers to be errors of other "religious
groups"? I hope you are not taking the American Catholic Church as
typical. In fact, the common perception around the world is that the
Church is *NOT* reluctant to make a point of what it considers to be
erroneous doctrines of other religions, even at the expense of inter-
religious dialogue. Whether that is actually true or not may be
debatable, but that is the perception. How did you come to the
precisely opposite conclusion?
<<...>>
John Wilkins
I have to agree. While I do not think that Catholicism is entirely
science-friendly, it is at least as science-friendly as any other
denomination and a lot more than most. Scientists, often Jesuits, have
contributed a lot to modern science, and the University at the Vatican
is a strongly pro-science institution. We do not need to manufacture
enemies when there are sufficient about to be getting on with.
Schönborn is an example of a science-unfriendly ranking cleric in the
RCC, and there are others. Basically, when doctrinal emphasis makes
science unpleasant, the RCC will often go with the doctrine, but some
lessons have been learned over the past 500 years.
Also, it goes in cycles. In the early 19th century, the RCC was less
friendly to science than it was at the end of it, largely due to the
anticlericalism of the Enlightenment. And there are regional variations.
American Catholicism is much more modern than, say, Spanish or Irish
Catholicism. Generalising is impossible.
Which makes a point to the OP: neither can Catholicism claim to be
pro-science, so long as there are those within it who act as if doctrine
trumps science. Basically, the church can neither take credit nor blame.
The "Christian milieu" hypothesis of the genesis of science is I think
not credible in one way - nothing about the Catholic tradition was
particularly necessary to the rise of science, and in fact science made
most progress in non-Catholic countries like Holland, England and
Germany. I would say that if there were conceptual preconditions for
science, they were, historically, those of neo-Platonism, in two ways.
One, the rise of nominalism in the late middle ages, which was important
for empiricism, was based on the neo-Platonic confusion of Platonic
forms and Aristotelian logic. The other is that the rediscovery of
neo-Platonic writings in the Renaissance motivated much astronomical,
natural historical and other scientific work, particularly interest in
alchemy, which rapidly evolved into actual chemistry.
alwaysaskingquestions
[...]
<quote>
I have to agree. While I do not think that Catholicism is entirely
science-friendly, it is at least as science-friendly as any other
denomination and a lot more than most. Scientists, often Jesuits, have
contributed a lot to modern science, and the University at the Vatican
is a strongly pro-science institution. We do not need to manufacture
enemies when there are sufficient about to be getting on with.
Schönborn is an example of a science-unfriendly ranking cleric in the
RCC, and there are others. Basically, when doctrinal emphasis makes
science unpleasant, the RCC will often go with the doctrine, but some
lessons have been learned over the past 500 years.
Also, it goes in cycles. In the early 19th century, the RCC was less
friendly to science than it was at the end of it, largely due to the
anticlericalism of the Enlightenment. And there are regional variations.
American Catholicism is much more modern than, say, Spanish or Irish
Catholicism. Generalising is impossible.
Which makes a point to the OP: neither can Catholicism claim to be
pro-science, so long as there are those within it who act as if doctrine
trumps science. Basically, the church can neither take credit nor blame.
</quote>
I'm starting to wonder if it's even possible to produce a FAQ as such;
whilst there are countless examples of how the Church has actively supported
science there are also many specific instances where it can be argued that
the Church has been less than enthusiatic about it.
I'm still ploughing my way through Jon Hedley Brook - not exactly a "one
sitting" book - and he seems to struggle with the same issue that whilst
there is plenty of material to show that religion and science can co-exist,
the relationship is somewhat amorphous and difficult to pin down
conclusively at any specific point in time.
I think you have summed it up pretty well when you " it is at least as
science-friendly as any other denomination and a lot more than most" and I
also agree with your comment about not needing to manufacture enemies which
is a trap that I think a lot of people unwittingly fall into.
That's actually what motivated me to attempt this - the widespread
misinformation that is used to present the Catholic Church as an enemy of
science.
So much of this, however, is open to personal interpretation - unlike, for
example, the TO 'List of Creatioist Claims' - that I'm no longer sure that
it is a subject suitable for a FAQ. Nevertheless, I would like to try to
produce a much shortener and toned-down version to see the reaction here.
[...]
alwaysaskingquestions
>
> "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:568ci5F...@mid.individual.net...
[...]
>> Good suggestion but I can't find the pre-1950 editions online - have you
>> got
>> a link?
>
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html
That seems to be the current edition, how do I get to the pre-1950's
editions?
alwaysaskingquestions
"Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:1174359380....@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Actually, the Church *has* issued statements on Christian
> fundamentalism - insofar as it applies to Biblical interpretation -
> and has come down soundly against it. In fact, the essential
> fundamentalist doctrine of sola scriptura is against Catholic
> teaching, so the Church really could not go any other way.
That has been a long-standing position of the Church, I'm not aware of it
being a particularly high-profile issue in recent years although AFAIR the
Church did issue a low-key statement a while back simply reminding Catholics
that the Church does not endorse a literal interpretation of the Old
Testament.
> I wonder how you could have concluded that the Church is "reluctant"
> to "condemn" what it considers to be errors of other "religious
> groups"?
As far as I can see, the Church has taken a more defensive stance in recent
years, it will certainly react to direct challenges to Church teachings but
seems to avoid initiating attacks on other religions.
>I hope you are not taking the American Catholic Church as
> typical. In fact, the common perception around the world is that the
> Church is *NOT* reluctant to make a point of what it considers to be
> erroneous doctrines of other religions, even at the expense of inter-
> religious dialogue.
The only significant example of this in recent times that comes to mind is
the Pope's comments on Islam last year; even in that case, when the Vatican
saw the reaction to the comments, it immediately launched into an intensive
campaign to minimise and repair the damage done.
tex...@gmail.com
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not arguing that he was an evolutionist in modern terms but his
> explanation of Genesis certainly left room for evolution. The only real
> difference between his ideas and Darwinism - is that he thought all the
> future evolutionary changes were stored up from the start, not through
> mutation and natural selection; that, of course, is a substantial difference
> but in the context of Augustine's time and the limited scientific knowledge
> then, I think that was very advanced thinking.
I happen to be a (critical) fan of St. Augustine, but this is
ridiculous. There is no evolutionary change in his thought
that I am aware of, and no *changes* are stored in the
seeds, but complete creations. A FAQ doesn't need this
kind of apologetics. Please don't gou out of your way to
look for things that can be interpreted positively.
As a sidenote: don't brush the Galileo story up too much
either. Pope JPII saw the need to apologize for *something*,
don't turn his apology into a mistake.
Regards,
Karel
alwaysaskingquestions
<tex...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174377654....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 19, 7:07 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not arguing that he was an evolutionist in modern terms but his
>> explanation of Genesis certainly left room for evolution. The only real
>> difference between his ideas and Darwinism - is that he thought all the
>> future evolutionary changes were stored up from the start, not through
>> mutation and natural selection; that, of course, is a substantial
>> difference
>> but in the context of Augustine's time and the limited scientific
>> knowledge
>> then, I think that was very advanced thinking.
>
> I happen to be a (critical) fan of St. Augustine, but this is
> ridiculous. There is no evolutionary change in his thought
> that I am aware of, and no *changes* are stored in the
> seeds, but complete creations.
I don't agree that it is ridiculous, in was a suject of intense debate in
the early part of the 20th century among people like Henry de Dorlodot,
Henry Woods, Michael J. McKeogh and Charles Boyer but ...
> A FAQ doesn't need this
> kind of apologetics. Please don't gou out of your way to
> look for things that can be interpreted positively.
... I do agree that it is a matter for debate and has no place in a FAQ. I
also think that I've placed far too much emphasis on Augustine generally.
> As a sidenote: don't brush the Galileo story up too much
> either. Pope JPII saw the need to apologize for *something*,
> don't turn his apology into a mistake.
The key point I'm trying to bring out is that irrsepctive of how badly the
Church treated Galileo, it was not anti-science issue as it is commonly
portrayed. but again I agree that what I initially wrote does not treat this
adequately.
John Wilkins
I would be willing to coauthor (read: edit) any such FAQ. I think that
we need to hit the "War Between Science and Religion" trope on the head.
The actual relation is much more complex.
John Wilkins
> <tex...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1174377654....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 19, 7:07 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'm not arguing that he was an evolutionist in modern terms but his
> >> explanation of Genesis certainly left room for evolution. The only real
> >> difference between his ideas and Darwinism - is that he thought all the
> >> future evolutionary changes were stored up from the start, not through
> >> mutation and natural selection; that, of course, is a substantial
> >> difference but in the context of Augustine's time and the limited
> >> scientific knowledge then, I think that was very advanced thinking.
> >
> > I happen to be a (critical) fan of St. Augustine, but this is
> > ridiculous. There is no evolutionary change in his thought
> > that I am aware of, and no *changes* are stored in the
> > seeds, but complete creations.
>
> I don't agree that it is ridiculous, in was a suject of intense debate in
> the early part of the 20th century among people like Henry de Dorlodot,
> Henry Woods, Michael J. McKeogh and Charles Boyer but ...
There was an industry in the late 19th and early 20th century that tried
to find precursors to Darwin. It began with Butler's Luck and Cunning,
followed by H. F. Osborne's From the Greeks to Darwin, and continued
thereafter. The best book on precursors to Darwin is this:
Glass, Bentley, Owsei Temkin, and William L. Straus Jr., eds. 1959.
Forerunners of Darwin, 1745-1859. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
which clears up most of the confusions and misstated claims. I don't
recall if they deal with Augustine, but I'll bet they do. See also
http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-21
Basically it is a mistake to read the pre-moderns as being either
evolutionists or creationists, as the very terms of that debate didn't
apply until the 18th century.
TomS
<5683dnF...@mid.individual.net>, alwaysaskingquestions stated..."
>
>
>"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:184325260.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> "On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:08:28 -0000, in article
>> <567qrsF...@mid.individual.net>, alwaysaskingquestions stated..."
>>>
>>>A while back, I got involved in one of the regular debates here on the
>>>relationship between the Catholic Church and Science. Due to what I
>>>regarded
>>>as a wide misunderstanding of the Church's attititude, I suggested that a
>>>FAQ for TO might be appropriate and this was promptly kicked back to me -
>>>"Why don't you do it then!" :)
>>>
>>>My first attempt at this is given below for debate and discussion.
>>
>> I suggest that you look at this recent book:
>>
>> Mariano Artigas, Thomas F. Glick, and Rafael A. Martinez
>> Negotiating Darwin: The Vatican Confronts Evolution, 1877-1902
>> Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 2006
>> ISBN 080188389X
>>
>> It discusses in detail the cases of six Catholics who supported
>> evolution and their relationships with the official Church:
>>
>> Raffaello Caverni
>> Dalmace Leroy
>> John A. Zahm
>> Geremia Bonomelli
>> John C. Hedley
>> St. George Jackson Mivart
>
>Any comments on the overal thrust of the book before I fork out £32 on it ?
The authors did the work of going through the Vatican archives on these
cases (the archives have become generally open to scholars in 1998). If
there is a general drift to the book, it is that the official Church was
being conservative in its approach to Catholics writing on evolution -
"conservative" in the sense of not wishing to make a statement unless
one has to, but also wary of innovations in theology.
The case of Mivart should be known to many people, and also that
of Zahm. The others, much less so. Mivart eventually got into deep
trouble with the Church, but not over evolution. Zahm was forced
to be quiet, although he avoided a public recanting.
The book is directed to a scholarly audience, which undoubtedly accounts
for the high price. I see that AbeBooks.com lists several copies available,
starting at about $35.
--
---Tom S.
"...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)
John Wilkins
alwaysaskingquestions
alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> So much of this, however, is open to personal interpretation - unlike,
>> for
>> example, the TO 'List of Creatioist Claims' - that I'm no longer sure
>> that
>> it is a subject suitable for a FAQ. Nevertheless, I would like to try to
>> produce a much shortener and toned-down version to see the reaction here.
>>
>>
[...]
> I would be willing to coauthor (read: edit) any such FAQ.
Good, that would be very helpful. It'll be a day or two before I get a
chance to do some more work on this, should I email the next draft to you or
just put it up here ?
> I think that we need to hit the "War Between Science and Religion" trope
>on the head. The actual relation is much more complex.
I'm starting to that maybe the 'Galileo affair' should be a separate FAQ of
its own.
John Wilkins
> "John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1hvak39.9y78g0fj5pwmN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
> alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> So much of this, however, is open to personal interpretation - unlike,
> >> for
> >> example, the TO 'List of Creatioist Claims' - that I'm no longer sure
> >> that
> >> it is a subject suitable for a FAQ. Nevertheless, I would like to try to
> >> produce a much shortener and toned-down version to see the reaction here.
> >>
> >>
>
> [...]
>
> > I would be willing to coauthor (read: edit) any such FAQ.
>
> Good, that would be very helpful. It'll be a day or two before I get a
> chance to do some more work on this, should I email the next draft to you or
> just put it up here ?
Do it here. Keep it in the open.
>
> > I think that we need to hit the "War Between Science and Religion" trope
> >on the head. The actual relation is much more complex.
>
> I'm starting to that maybe the 'Galileo affair' should be a separate FAQ of
> its own.
See how it goes. A rough discussion might be useful here.
Perplexed in Peoria
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:569frnF...@mid.individual.net...
Boy, I sure hope not:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V. Published 1909.
New York: Robert Appleton Company.
Nihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor.
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
> how do I get to the pre-1950's
> editions?
Use the search box to look for an article. See "Evolution" or "Catholics and
Evolution". Or "Creation".
John Harshman
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Whilst the concept of a heliocentric universe had been voiced by various
>>>>philosophers and scientists from ancient times, Copernicus was initially
>>>
>>>
>>>Only *in* ancient times before Copernicus. Nobody had seriously proposed
>>>it in the intervening period, so far as I know.
>>
>>Giordano Bruno? Now he was burned at the stake, unlike Galileo. And the
>>charges against him were many, nor was any of them specifically to do
>>with heliocentrism. But if I were Copernicus, that would have given me
>>pause. Shouldn't Bruno at least be mentioned here?
>
>
> Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
> Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)
> Galileo Galilee (1564-1642)
>
> Bruno was not tried because he was a heliocentrist, but because his
> theology was heretical.
Didn't I say exactly that? His theology was heretical, but some of the
heresy involved claims about the physical nature of the universe.
Heliocentrism wasn't mentioned, but could have been encompassed by some
of the charges, which were a bit vague. Still, one of the charges was
that he supposed the universe to be infinite in size and for there to be
life on other worlds around other suns. I think that's a legitimate case
of suppression of science; certainly so if we include scientific
speculation. Just as Galileo was suppressed for claiming that
heliocentrism was true, not just an entertaining parlor game.
Ken Shaw
>
>
> Checking more into the background on this I found:http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tru/tru_01familysafesex1.html#b20
>
> I refer you in particular to the sections on "The Same Concern, From
> Non-Ecclesiastical Circles" and "The Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence
> on Condom Effectiveness For Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention.
>
> A research programm involving US Agency for International Development
> (USAID), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and
> Prevention (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). found that
> the failure rate for consoms against STD is about 15%.
That is not what the study found! Even your own, biased Cardinal
written, cite says "available scientific evidence indicated that the
condom reduces the risk of AIDS/HIV by 85%."
HIV transmission in unprotected heterosexual intercourse is not
automatic. As a matter of fact the rate of transmission is only 0.001
per penile/vaginal intercourse*. Reducing that rate by 85% is
therefore sufficient to make it possible for a couple where one
partner is HIV+ to engage in thousands of sex acts with very little
chance of the uninfected partner contracting the virus.
*Mastro TD, de Vincenzi I. Probabilities of sexual HIV-1 transmission.
AIDS 1996;10(Suppl A):S75-S82.
>
> Quite apart from the fact that these Cardinals are not purporting to give an
> official Church position, their comments about the risks of overdependence
> on condoms in the face of those finding can hardly be described as being "at
> variance with an accepted scientific theory." - unless, of course, that you
> want to claim that USAID, FDA, CDC, NIH, Dr. Helen Singer-Kaplan, the Los
> Angeles Times, UCLA and Dr. John Wilks are also at variance with scientific
> theory
>
Nice try at twisting the actual science but you're wrong and Cardinal
Trujillo and his supporters remain on the wrong side of very good
science.
Ken
AC
alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Schönborn is an example of a science-unfriendly ranking cleric in the
> RCC, and there are others. Basically, when doctrinal emphasis makes
> science unpleasant, the RCC will often go with the doctrine, but some
> lessons have been learned over the past 500 years.
So will you be listing Schoenborn among the anti-science group, or will
you, like some Catholics around these parts, defend the man, and refuse
to recognize his wink-wink-nudge-nudge behavior to the ID crowd?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Mark Isaak
If the article is to be on the Catholic Church and science in general, it
should say something about the modern Church's positions on sex, which in
many ways are as anti-science as anti-science gets.
Also, has the Church ever said anything about the scientific method in
general? I have only seen the Church talking about specific findings or
about knowledge in general, never about how to find that knowledge. Has
the Church ever officially approved of the idea of keeping an open mind
and looking systematically for one's answers, even if they might differ
from what you have been previously taught?
alwaysaskingquestions
"Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.03.20....@earthlink.net...
> >[snip]
>
> If the article is to be on the Catholic Church and science in general, it
> should say something about the modern Church's positions on sex, which in
> many ways are as anti-science as anti-science gets.
Please enlighten me on how *moral* attitudes on sex (or any topic for that
matter) have anything to do with *science*.
>
> Also, has the Church ever said anything about the scientific method in
> general? I have only seen the Church talking about specific findings or
> about knowledge in general, never about how to find that knowledge.
Hmmm ... I can just imagine the reaction around here if the Church started
to tell scientists how to go about their work :)
>Has
> the Church ever officially approved of the idea of keeping an open mind
> and looking systematically for one's answers, even if they might differ
> from what you have been previously taught?
I don't know of any laid down doctrine but it's abundantly clear from the
examples I previously gave that that is very much the approach the Church
takes in practice.
AC
alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.03.20....@earthlink.net...
>> >[snip]
>>
>> If the article is to be on the Catholic Church and science in general, it
>> should say something about the modern Church's positions on sex, which in
>> many ways are as anti-science as anti-science gets.
>
> Please enlighten me on how *moral* attitudes on sex (or any topic for that
> matter) have anything to do with *science*.
Well, we could start with the outright lies that have been told by some
Church officials on the effectiveness of condoms.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Mark Isaak
> "Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.03.20....@earthlink.net...
>> >[snip]
>>
>> If the article is to be on the Catholic Church and science in general, it
>> should say something about the modern Church's positions on sex, which in
>> many ways are as anti-science as anti-science gets.
>
> Please enlighten me on how *moral* attitudes on sex (or any topic for
> that matter) have anything to do with *science*.
"Homosexuality is unnatural" and "homosexuality is a mental illness" and
"the primary purpose of sex is procreation" and "marriage is defined as
one man and one woman" are not moral attitudes; they are falsehoods. And
I have heard high-ranking Catholics say all of the above.
>> Also, has the Church ever said anything about the scientific method in
>> general? I have only seen the Church talking about specific findings
>> or about knowledge in general, never about how to find that knowledge.
>
> Hmmm ... I can just imagine the reaction around here if the Church
> started to tell scientists how to go about their work :)
>
>>Has
>> the Church ever officially approved of the idea of keeping an open mind
>> and looking systematically for one's answers, even if they might differ
>> from what you have been previously taught?
>
> I don't know of any laid down doctrine but it's abundantly clear from
> the examples I previously gave that that is very much the approach the
> Church takes in practice.
What approach does the Church take when the research is on something they
would regard as controversial? How many of the scientists around you do
research on sex or on gender roles?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Perplexed in Peoria
>
> If the article is to be on the Catholic Church and science in general, it
> should say something about the modern Church's positions on sex, which in
> many ways are as anti-science as anti-science gets.
Huh? The Church's position is roughly that sex outside the bounds of
matrimony is immoral (sinful).
Exactly which teachings of science on the question of morality and sin does
this contradict?
[snip demand that the Church take a position on the scientific method.
Refrain from demanding in turn that the AAAS take a position on vicarious
atonement.]
alwaysaskingquestions
"Ken Shaw" ksha...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:1174403665.3...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 19, 5:07 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com wrote:
>> "Ken Shaw" kshaw1...@gmail.com wrote in message
>>
>> news:1174338754.4...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> Checking more into the background on this I
>> found:http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tru/tru_01familysafesex1.html#b20
>>
>> I refer you in particular to the sections on "The Same Concern, From
>> Non-Ecclesiastical Circles" and "The Workshop Summary: Scientific
>> Evidence
>> on Condom Effectiveness For Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD)
>> Prevention.
>>
>> A research programm involving US Agency for International Development
>> (USAID), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control
>> and
>> Prevention (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). found
>> that
>> the failure rate for consoms against STD is about 15%.
>
> That is not what the study found!
Yes it is. The report itself is available at
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/research/topics/STI/pdf/condomreport.pdf
From page 14
<quote>
Conclusions
The methodological strength of the studies on condoms to reduce the risk of
HIV/AIDS transmission far exceeds that for other STDs. There is demonstrated
exposure to HIV/AIDS through sexual intercourse with a regular partner (with
an absence of other HIV/AIDS risk factors). Longitudinal studies of HIV-
sexual partners of HIV+ infected cases allow for the estimation of HIV/AIDS
incidence among condom users and condom non-users. From the two incidence
estimates, consistent condom use decreased the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission
by approximately 85%. These data provide strong evidence for the
effectiveness of condoms for reducing sexually transmitted HIV.
</quote>
Please at least get your basic facts right.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.03.20....@earthlink.net...
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:23:48 +0000, alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
[...]
> "Homosexuality is unnatural" and "homosexuality is a mental illness" and
> "the primary purpose of sex is procreation" and "marriage is defined as
> one man and one woman" are not moral attitudes; they are falsehoods. And
> I have heard high-ranking Catholics say all of the above.
What has that to do with science?
alwaysaskingquestions
>
> "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:569frnF...@mid.individual.net...
>> > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html
>>
>> That seems to be the current edition,
>
> Boy, I sure hope not:
> The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V. Published 1909.
> New York: Robert Appleton Company.
> Nihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor.
> Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
Sorry, my mistake, I thought the encyclopedia had been updated; it does
indeed make interesting reading.
alwaysaskingquestions
"AC" <mightym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnf007p7.hk....@nobody.here...
Ahem ... John Wilkins said that, not me ... and I don't think the Cardinal
should hold his breath waiting for John to defend him :)
Anyway, Schönborn will be covered when I get around to a rewrite of this
proposed FAQ.
alwaysaskingquestions
<sigh>
You might start by reading my earlier exchange with Ken Shaw on this
specific topic.
Perplexed in Peoria
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:56b1gsF...@mid.individual.net...
Oh, the CE has indeed been updated - many times. But NewAdvent
is an extremely conservative sect of Catholicism, and their online version
of the encyclopedia apparently includes only the last revision they agree
with. Mostly 1909, some from earlier, and in a few cases they go up to
1911. I haven't seen any articles dated after 1911 though.
Frank J
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1174344374....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> [..]
>
> Points about John Paul II and Schonborn noted, this is definitely an area to
> be covered when I get around to revising this proposed FAQ.
>
> > Evolution does not stand or fall by popularity contest, but I really
> > thought that by now, at least the Catholic Church, if not most
> > Christian religions would have taken a clear, unequivocal stand, not
> > just for evolution and science, but against anti-evolution activists.
>
> I suspect - though I don't have any evidence for this - that however much
> the Church disapproves of fundamentalism, it is reluctant to publicly
> condemn *any* religious group nowadays because of its previous adoption of a
> 'holier than thou' stance in its attitude to other Christian denominations.
> Also, it has enough on its plate trying to cope with its own wrongdoings in
> recent years without getting embroiled in the wrongdoings of other religious
> groups.
Agreed that the Church has a lot on it's plate. But it can avoid
condemning fundamentalism by taking advantage of ID's (and most
classic creationism's) own pretense of being "only about the science."
When anti-science activists misrepresent science and bear false
witness with their bait-and-switch games, that crosses the line. ID/
creationism has so much wrong with it that it can be trashed without
ever mentioning its religious motives. That part is only necessary to
keep it out of public schools.
AC
alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "AC" <mightym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnf007p7.hk....@nobody.here...
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:08:49 -0000,
>> alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Schönborn is an example of a science-unfriendly ranking cleric in the
>>> RCC, and there are others. Basically, when doctrinal emphasis makes
>>> science unpleasant, the RCC will often go with the doctrine, but some
>>> lessons have been learned over the past 500 years.
>>
>> So will you be listing Schoenborn among the anti-science group, or will
>> you, like some Catholics around these parts, defend the man, and refuse
>> to recognize his wink-wink-nudge-nudge behavior to the ID crowd?
>
> Ahem ... John Wilkins said that, not me ... and I don't think the Cardinal
> should hold his breath waiting for John to defend him :)
If only I didn't have to hold my breath waiting for some Catholics to
defend him.
>
> Anyway, Schönborn will be covered when I get around to a rewrite of this
> proposed FAQ.
I can hardly wait.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Dan Drake
wrote:
> alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>...
> > According to the first link above, 'While it's true that a decree issued by
> > Pope Urban VIII instructed that Galileo "should be questioned as to his
> > intentions and that he should be menaced with torture," no torture was ever
> > carried out' and it also points out that there is no mention of maltreatment
> > in any of Galileo's subsequent letters or essays.
>
> Of course not. Being shown the instruments of torture would be
> sufficient threat. But they were shown for a reason - if you persisted
> in heretical claims, these instruments would be *used*, and everybody
> knew it.
Even this is <sigh> a bit too optimistic, at least as it relates to
current arguments. A search through, for instance, soc.history.science
archives, if one has the stomach, will find people claiming that everyone
knew that the instruments-of-torture business was purely a formality, and
the Roman (as opposed to Spanish) Inquisition didn't really torture people
at that time, especially an old guy like Galileo.
'It's all her fancy, that: they never executes nobody, you know. Come on!'
-- as the Gryphon said to Alice.
This is really silly, of course, considering that 33 years before, they
had publicly burned a man at the stake for persisting in heretical
opinions. "They" are the Roman (not Spanish) Inquisition. And he, of
course, was Giordano Bruno; accuracy requires mentioning his name despite
the replies that will probably follow, that he was not executed
specifically for heliocentrism, which is irrelevant to the point.
Just filling this in for completeness: there are apologists for
Inquisition right now who insist that everybody knew the instruments of
torture would *not* be used.
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com
Dan Drake
wrote:
> > > I would be willing to coauthor (read: edit) any such FAQ.
> >
> > Good, that would be very helpful. It'll be a day or two before I get a
> > chance to do some more work on this, should I email the next draft to you or
> > just put it up here ?
>
> Do it here. Keep it in the open.
> >
> > > I think that we need to hit the "War Between Science and Religion" trope
> > >on the head. The actual relation is much more complex.
> >
> > I'm starting to that maybe the 'Galileo affair' should be a separate FAQ of
> > its own.
>
> See how it goes. A rough discussion might be useful here.
If only it could be made a Wiki without dragging in every crank on the
Intertubes to muck it up. (There is one right now on that exact subject,
unless they've changed the subject line again, but I discovered a long
time ago that I lack the temperament for Wikipedia work.)
AC
alwaysaskingquestions
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1174427239.9...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 19, 6:19 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1174344374....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> [..]
>> I suspect - though I don't have any evidence for this - that however much
>> the Church disapproves of fundamentalism, it is reluctant to publicly
>> condemn *any* religious group nowadays because of its previous adoption
>> of a
>> 'holier than thou' stance in its attitude to other Christian
>> denominations.
>> Also, it has enough on its plate trying to cope with its own wrongdoings
>> in
>> recent years without getting embroiled in the wrongdoings of other
>> religious
>> groups.
>
> Agreed that the Church has a lot on it's plate. But it can avoid
> condemning fundamentalism by taking advantage of ID's (and most
> classic creationism's) own pretense of being "only about the science."
> When anti-science activists misrepresent science and bear false
> witness with their bait-and-switch games, that crosses the line. ID/
> creationism has so much wrong with it that it can be trashed without
> ever mentioning its religious motives.
I would suggest that criticising ID purely on a scientific basis would be
the worst possible avenue the Church could take.
>That part is only necessary to
> keep it out of public schools.
Again, I don't think that pronouncing on education policy in public would be
a good thing for the Church to engage in.
AC
What strikes me as amusing is that now the Catholic Church is one of the
most vocal critics of capital punishment. I wonder if anyone at the
Vatican ever gets a twinge when they express the "official" line on
executions. I wonder how any of this jives with the Church as THE
instrument of God. Did God change His mind? It was okay to burn
heretics a five centuries ago, but now, well, that's just not
acceptable.
I'm not complaining about the Church's stance, just with the intense
irony that goes along with what is really an about-face. I suppose a
lot of it really has to do with the fact that the Church lost control
of Italy, and without that political power, it no longer had the ability
to get rid of inconvenient individuals, so suddenly it leapt on to the
idea that executions are bad. A sort of collosal Peewee Herman "I
meant to do that!"
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Dan Drake
> In article <1174324023....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> loua...@yahoo.com <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >...
> >But wasn't Galileo's book about heliocentrism put on the Index of
> >Prohibited Books for a couple of centuries? That's hardly withholding
> >judgment until all the facts are in.
>
> Until the 20th century, iirc, around 350 years.
>
> >Also, how long was Galileo under house arrest?
>
> The rest of his life (a twenty-ish years, iirc). He did publish
> the book in my .sig during that time -- with vetting at all
> stages by The Church.
Minor corrections (and I hope I got the attributions and arrow-counts
right):
The book came off the Index, as another post has already noted, in the
19th century. So only 200 years.
The house arrest was lifelong, but he lived only until 1642 (January 9);
so it was a bit under 9 years. I wonder if the figure of 20 years is a
confusion between Galileo's brush with Rome in 1616 and the trial in 1633?
The administration of ithe house arrest seems to have been spotty.
Visiting him required permission from the Inquisition; but highly dubious
people like John Milton managed to visit; but Galileo's old friend
Benedetto Castelli (a Benedictine abbott, no less) had to work for months
to get permission.
And not quite all stages of Two New Sciences were vetted by the
Inquisition: to publish it, he had to sneak it out to the Netherlands.
There was no way he could get permission to publish it in Italy, since the
Inquisition had forbidden publication of *any* of his books, including
irrelevant older ones, and anything he might write in the future. France
and Germany were no better. What was thoroughly and extensively vetted was
the _Dialogue_, which then got him in trouble.
The vindictive action of banning whatever he might write, however
irrelevant, isn't necessarily something that belongs in the FAQ, as it's
arguably sheer nastiness rather than oppostion to science. But it gives
one pause.
[Nice .sig line, btw. I wonder if Sherlock Holmes had read the book and
decided to make a bigger show of his deductions -- though people still
said they seemed easy enough once explained.]
John Harshman
> [Nice .sig line, btw. I wonder if Sherlock Holmes had read the book and
> decided to make a bigger show of his deductions -- though people still
> said they seemed easy enough once explained.]
We know that Holmes hadn't read the book, because Watson was at one
point surprised to discover that Holmes was unaware that the earth
revolved around the sun. His education, though broad, was spotty.
alwaysaskingquestions
A bit more than that.
alwaysaskingquestions
As a quick test on how up to date it is, I did a check on 'Vatican Council'
to find that the last one opened 8 December, 1869, and adjourned on 20
October, 1870 :)
It would actually be quite interesting if older editions of some other
encyclopaedias were available online to check contemporary thinking on
various subjects.
AC
So how many Cardinals are being hung out to dry by this one? Or will
the Church just treat the ludicrous statements by some of its senior
members with an awe-inspiring silence.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Dan Drake
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
[Let me say, coming in late, into a famously touchy topic, that this looks
to me like a good draft of something that needs doing. However, I have a
number of nits to pick in the ever-troublesome matter of Galileo.]
>...
> The Scientific Revolution
> --------------------------------
> The event which most historians of science call the scientific revolution
> can be dated roughly as having begun in 1543,... As with many
> historical demarcations, historians of science disagree about its
> boundaries, some seeing elements contributing to the revolution as early as
> the 14th century and finding its last stages in chemistry and biology in the
> 18th and 19th centuries.
And then again, there are many who like to deny that there was a
Scientific Revolution at all. There was a book a few years ago that
started with somehing like ~"There was no Scientific Revolution, and this
is a book about it." Whether this should be mentioned in the FAQ, I don't
know.
>...
>
> Galileo
> ----------
>
> Why then, in view of the Church's active support for astronomy and the
> theories of Copernicus and Kepler, did it run into problems with Galileo?
>
> The answer is that the issue that the Church had with Galileo was not at all
> his argument about the Earth circling the Sun.
This is a good deal stronger than is justified by the evidence. Consider:
[quote]
But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the
heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis )
without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the
third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very
dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and
scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering
the Holy Scriptures false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways
of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular,
and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had
attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.
"Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits
expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy
Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also
the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and
Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram)
that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and
that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center
of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could
encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all
the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not
a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of
view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken.
It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob
twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are
declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and
apostles.
[end quote] [Sorry, it's hard to know when to stop quoting.]
That's Cardinal (Saint) Robert Bellarmine, writing to Foscarini, a cleric
who held Copernican ideas and wanted to reconcile them with Scripture. It
does not show an open-minded attitude, honestly open to new evidence, much
less an unconcern with any supposed conflict with Scripture.
The text is from
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1615bellarmine-letter.html
a fairly unimpeachable source (unless one really has it in for Jesuits :)
with lots of other source material.
> Their problem was that
> Galileo insisted he was right without sufficient evidence to back up his
> ideas at that stage
On the basis of many documents like the above, I don't see how this can be
seriously asserted as their real problem.
and with no explanation for the particular problem of
> the absence of observable parallex shifts in the stars' positions.
This is simply inaccurate. Galileo discusses the question of stellar
parallax in some detail in the Third Day of the Dialogue. What he says, of
course, is that there will be no observable parallax if the Universe is
very large. The conservative philosopher (not churchman -- but wait for
it) Simplicio interjects at one point that God would not create a lot of
useless space; Galileo's guy Salviati reponds that it's presumptuous to
judge God's purposes that way.
Both sides are involing religion here, because that's how one had to argue
in those days, though we like to think we've outgrown that. But the point
is that Galileo had a perfectly good logical and mathematical answer to
the problem, just one that his opponents refused to consider as possible.
> Despite
> this lack of proof and unanswered issues, Galileo insisted on promoting his
> ideas as established fact and set out to challenge the then current
> interpretation of Holy Scripture on the basis of these unproven ideas.
A challenge endorsed by Pope John Paul II (though not ex cathedra, I
think) in 1992.
'Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more
perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. "If
Scripture cannot err", he wrote to Benedetto Castelli, "certain of its
interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways".(2) We also know
of his letter to Christine de Lorraine (1615) which is like a short
treatise on biblical hermeneutics.(3)'
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
It does not at all appear that the Pope is relying on the later proofs of
Galileo's scientific ideas in making this judgment; he's talking theology.
A moment ago I nearly killed this whole over-long posting by hitting a
wrong key. It's time to leave off and get it published while it survives;
I hope to post more pretty soon.
Perplexed in Peoria
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:56b4fdF...@mid.individual.net...
So, you think that it would be a mistake for a pope to say something like
this about the evidence for evolution:
The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work
that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in
favor of this theory.
;-)
loua...@yahoo.com
> "Homosexuality is unnatural" and "homosexuality is a mental illness" and
> "the primary purpose of sex is procreation" and "marriage is defined as
> one man and one woman" are not moral attitudes; they are falsehoods. And
> I have heard high-ranking Catholics say all of the above.
1, 3, and 4 are moral judgments; they can't be true or false because
they're intended as prescriptive not descriptive. I myself think
they're inaccurate and harmful moral judgments, but 'moral judgment'
remains the category they fit in. 2 was at one time considered
scientific (under the heavy influence of 1, 3 and 4). As such it can
be disproven empirically, and has been.
I see two separate issues here. There's the overall issue of the RCC
_being_ the RCC -- i.e. a hierarchical self-perpetuating organization
with no accountability of the leaders to the led, with the stated
purpose of the leaders telling the led what to think on matters of
(broadly defined) faith and morals. Additionally an organization which
on its track record hasn't renounced the use of force to enforce its
dictates nearly so much as it's accepted the _fait accompli_ of its
loss of secular power as gracefully as they could manage.
Having said that, there's then the specific issue which I take to be
the subject of the proposed FAQ. Given that the RCC is hierarchical,
etc. etc., to what extent have they interfered with the progress of
science in general and evolutionary biology in particular? I gather
that the answers are (in order) "some, but not much in recent
centuries" and "a little, but not nearly as much as the _sola
scriptura_ crowd down the hall."
The first is, as an ex-Protestant atheist, not my business for the
same reason that the difficulties of keeping kosher are not my
business. I think we'd do better to stick strictly to the second in
critiquing the FAQ.
John Wilkins
The mistake here is to see the Church as a single agent who has changed
his mind. But the Church is no more a single agent than the United
States is, or the Institution of Marriage. It is a corporate entity,
with factions, traditions, individuals, internal institutions, external
institutions it partakes of, and many. many, different lines of thought.
Like any such social corporate entity, it evolves, as populations are
wont to do. The only real issue is when people treat it as an agent and
want to defend the "agent's" actions in the past.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> The mistake here is to see the Church as a single agent who has changed
> his mind. But the Church is no more a single agent than the United
> States is, or the Institution of Marriage. It is a corporate entity,
> with factions, traditions, individuals, internal institutions, external
> institutions it partakes of, and many. many, different lines of thought.
> Like any such social corporate entity,
But an individual has various centers of attention that are always in
conflict. Plan A suits my long term material interests, but plan B makes
me look better to the community, but I really want to do C, for example.
There is no fixed center as such. For example, as a student I may need
to study A, but my buddies want me to come to rehearsal for the class
play B, but I really want to go skiing C. But for social purposes we
have to hold the person to be an entity and similarly with institutions.
alwaysaskingquestions
"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1hvbqwg.8dike1rdqj1pN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
[...]
> The mistake here is to see the Church as a single agent who has changed
> his mind. But the Church is no more a single agent than the United
> States is, or the Institution of Marriage. It is a corporate entity,
> with factions, traditions, individuals, internal institutions, external
> institutions it partakes of, and many. many, different lines of thought.
> Like any such social corporate entity, it evolves, as populations are
> wont to do. The only real issue is when people treat it as an agent and
> want to defend the "agent's" actions in the past.
That IMO is a pretty fair summary except that I think the last statement
cuts both ways. There are issues when people seek to defend the Church's
actions in the past but equally there are issues when people try to use past
actions to attack the Church today. As I've said many times, I find it
fascinating that so many people who seek to argue that the Church is
anti-science base their main arguments on events that happened four
centuries ago.
We should also remember that any human organisation the size of and with the
power of the Catholic Church will almost inevitably get drawn into politics.
At the time of Galileo, the Vatican was a major political force within
Europe although those politics only seem to have a minor effect (if any) on
the Galileo affair. Nowadays, the political influence of the Church is much
less overt but still there - John Paul II is regarded as being a major
contributor to the downfall of communism in Eastern Europe.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Dan Drake" <d...@dandrake.com> wrote in message
news:vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-k1ioCYrSLndk@localhost...
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:08:28 UTC, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [Let me say, coming in late, into a famously touchy topic, that this looks
> to me like a good draft of something that needs doing. However, I have a
> number of nits to pick in the ever-troublesome matter of Galileo.]
<snip some good material in the interest of brevity>
> and with no explanation for the particular problem of
>> the absence of observable parallex shifts in the stars' positions.
>
> This is simply inaccurate. Galileo discusses the question of stellar
> parallax in some detail in the Third Day of the Dialogue. What he says, of
> course, is that there will be no observable parallax if the Universe is
> very large. The conservative philosopher (not churchman -- but wait for
> it) Simplicio interjects at one point that God would not create a lot of
> useless space; Galileo's guy Salviati reponds that it's presumptuous to
> judge God's purposes that way.
Thanks, that's something I didn't know, most commentators seem to present
the parallax problem as unanswered by Galileo.
[...]
> A challenge endorsed by Pope John Paul II (though not ex cathedra, I
> think) in 1992.
> 'Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more
> perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. "If
> Scripture cannot err", he wrote to Benedetto Castelli, "certain of its
> interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways".(2) We also know
> of his letter to Christine de Lorraine (1615) which is like a short
> treatise on biblical hermeneutics.(3)'
> http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
>
That's a very useful link. As you are obviously knowledgable on the Galileo
affair, can I ask you to have a look at this:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html
It seems to me a pretty fair summary of the actual incident - though maybe
playing down the torture threat too much - and Pope John Paul II's apology
but I would value your comments on it.
alwaysaskingquestions
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html
It seems to me a pretty fair summary of the actual incident - though maybe
playing down the torture threat too much - and Pope John Paul II's apology
but, as with Dan Drake, I would value your comments on it.
alwaysaskingquestions
<jcarl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174460781.8...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Excellent FAQ.
Not everyone agrees with that:)
I still like to think it is the basis of a useful FAQ but it requires some
serious editing
>I found the part in the beginning on the writings of
> St. Augustine particularly enlightening.
I think now that it is a bit too long winded; also the part about Augustine
supporting evolution is too controversial and should be left out or at least
toned down.
>I had always thought that
> support of scientific progress was a fairly recent development in the
> Church ...<snip> ... I am further
> encouraged by the fact that the Church has held this view for far
> longer than I previously thought according to your FAQ.
This is one of the key points I want to bring out as I think it is important
contextually.
I also think I need to bring out the underlying philosophy of the Church
that "while politicians think in terms of weeks and statesmen in years, the
Pope thinks in centuries" which is part of the reason why the Church appears
slow moving at times in fully embracing new 'hot ideas' like heliocentralism
and Darwin's theory.
>Makes you
> wonder if maybe, just maybe, most Christians were right about the
> whole "science vs. faith" thing all along in that they aren't, and
> indeed cannot be at odds with each other, and its those loony fundies
> who have no ground to stand on, scientifically or theologically.
Again, this is one of the underlying points that I want to bring out, though
I did not say it explicitily -that the attitude of the Catholic Church to
science is poles apart from that of the fundamentalists. As Jonh Wilkins
pointed out "We do not need to manufacture enemies when there are sufficient
about to be getting on with"
Bea Mused
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Church, of course, has never had a problem with Evolutionary Theory -
>from the writings of Augustine to the Church's total lack of opposition to
>the writings of Charles Darwin, the Church has never rejected any scientific
>theories that are accepted by the scientific community at large.
Does that paragraph square with the opinions expressed in these
excerpts from The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917)?
QUOTE -- Passing now to the theory of evolution as a philosophical
speculation, the history of the plant and animal kingdoms upon our
globe is but a small part of the history of the entire earth.
Similarly, the geological development of our earth constitutes but a
small part of the history of the solar system and of the universe. The
theory of evolution as a philosophical conception considers the entire
history of the cosmos as an harmonious development, brought about by
natural laws. This conception is in agreement with the Christian view
of the universe. God is the Creator of heaven and earth. If God
produced the universe by a single creative act of His will, then its
natural development by laws implanted in it by the Creator is to the
greater glory of His Divine power and wisdom. St. Thomas says: "The
potency of a cause is the greater, the more remote the effects to
which it extends." (Summa c. Gent., III, c. lxxvi); and Suarez: "God
does not interfere directly with the natural order, where secondary
causes suffice to produce the intended effect" (De opere sex dierum,
II, c. x, n. 13). In the light of this principle of the Christian
interpretation of nature, the history of the animal and vegetable
kingdoms on our planet is, as it were, a versicle in a volume of a
million pages in which the natural development of the cosmos is
described, and upon whose title-page is written: "In the beginning God
created heaven and earth."
(2) Theistic vs. Atheistic Theories of Evolution
The theory of evolution just stated rests on a theistic foundation. In
contradistinction to this is another theory resting on a materialistic
and atheistic basis, the first principle of which is the denial of a
personal Creator. This atheistic theory of evolution is ineffectual to
account for the first beginning of the cosmos or for the law of its
evolution, since it acknowledges neither creator nor lawgiver. Natural
science, moreover, has proved that spontaneous generation-i.e. the
independent genesis of a living being from non-living matter-
contradicts the facts of observation. For this reason the theistic
theory of evolution postulates an intervention on the part of the
Creator in the production of the first organisms. When and how the
first seeds of life were implanted in matter, we, indeed, do not know.
The Christian theory of evolution also demands a creative act for the
origin of the human soul, since the soul cannot have its origin in
matter. The atheistic theory of evolution, on the contrary, rejects
the assumption of a soul separate from matter, and thereby sinks into
blank materialism.
(3) The Theory of Evolution vs. Darwinism
Darwinism and the theory of evolution are by no means equivalent
conceptions. The theory of evolution was propounded before Charles
Darwin's time, by Lamarck (1809) and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire.
Darwin, in 1859, gave it a new form by endeavouring to explain the
origin of species by means of natural selection. According to this
theory the breeding of new species depends on the survival of the
fittest in the struggle for existence. The Darwinian theory of
selection is Darwinism-adhering to the narrower, and accurate, sense
of the word. As a theory, it is scientifically inadequate, since it
does not account for the origin of attributes fitted to the purpose,
which must be referred back to the interior, original causes of
evolution. Haeckel, with other materialists, has enlarged this
selection theory of Darwin's into a philosophical world-idea, by
attempting to account for the whole evolution of the cosmos by means
of the chance survival of the fittest. This theory is Darwinism in the
secondary, and wider, sense of the word. It is that atheistical form
of the theory of evolution which was shown above-under (2)-to be
untenable. The third signification of the term Darwinism arose from
the application of the theory of selection to man, which is likewise
impossible of acceptance. In the fourth place, Darwinism frequently
stands, in popular usage, for the theory of evolution in general. This
use of the word rests on an evident confusion of ideas, and must
therefore be set aside.
(4) Human Evolution vs. Plant and Animal Evolution
To what extent is the theory of evolution applicable to man? That God
should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the
production of man's body, is per se not improbable, and was propounded
by St. Augustine (see AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, SAINT, under V. Augustinism
in History). The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from
animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to
paleontology. And the human soul could not have been derived through
natural evolution from that of the brute, since it is of a spiritual
nature; for which reason we must refer its origin to a creative act on
the part of God. -- UNQUOTE
QUOTE (same source) -- In the following sections we shall see that
there cannot be any doubt as to the evolution of species, if by
species we understand such groups of organisms as are generally styled
by botanists and zoologists systematic, or Linnćan species. But if by
the term species we are to understand groups of organisms whose range
of variability would correspond to that of "the human species", then
we believe that up to the present day there are no clear facts in
favour of specific evolution. In particular, it will be seen that thus
far there is no evidence of fact as to an ascending development of
organic forms, though we do not deny the possibility of it provided an
innate power of development be assumed, which operates teleologically.
-- UNQUOTE
QUOTE (same source) -- Hence this important conclusion follows: That
the central idea of modern evolution theories-namely, progressive
specific development-has not up to the present received any
confirmation from observation of the world of organisms as it now
exists. It is quite true, however, that the plasticity of organisms
has been proved by a number of experiments to be very considerable; so
that, in a constant environment, and by single variations, changes may
be brought about which a systematist would classify as specific or
even generic, if it were not clear from other sources that they are
not such. In the same way forms could be developed by segregation, the
characteristics of which would suffice "to constitute specific
differences in the eyes of most systematists, were the plants or
animals brought home by collectors" (Bateson). Yet such criteria are
meaningless for the demonstration of the formation of species. The
question as to the transmission of acquired characters is not by any
means decided. It follows from the doctrine of propagation that only
such characters can be transmitted as are contained in the germ-cells
or which have been either directly or indirectly transmitted to them.
Hence it is clear that all peculiarities acquired by the cells of the
body through the influence of environment, or by use or disuse, can
only be inherited if they are handed over, as it were, to the germ-
cells. But it is useless to discuss the question before we have
sufficient experimental evidence that acquired characters are at all
inherited. -- UNQUOTE
QUOTE (same source) -- Palćontology, therefore, can assert nothing
whatever of a development of the body of man from the animal. --
UNQUOTE
QUOTE (same source) -- VIII. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS. The most important
general conclusions to be noted are as follows:-
1. The origin of life is unknown to science.
2. The origin of the main organic types and their principal
subdivisions are likewise unknown to science.
3. There is no evidence in favour of an ascending evolution of
organic forms.
4. There is no trace of even a merely probable argument in favour
of the animal origin of man. The earliest human fossils and the most
ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens as we know him
today.
5. Most of the so-called systematic species and genera were
certainly not created as such, but originated by a process of either
gradual or saltatory evolution. Changes which extend beyond the range
of variation observed in the human species have thus far not been
strictly demonstrated, either experimentally or historically.
6. There is very little known as to the causes of evolution. The
greatest difficulty is to explain the origin and constancy of "new"
characters and the teleology of the process. Darwin's "natural
selection" is a negative factor only. The moulding influence of the
environment cannot be doubted; but at present we are unable to
ascertain how far that influence may extend. Lamarck's "inheritance of
acquired characters" is not yet exactly proved, nor is it evident that
really new forms can arise by "mutation". In our opinion the principle
of "Mendelian segregation", together with Darwin's natural selection
and the moulding influence of environment, will probably be some of
the chief constituents of future evolutionary theories. -- UNQUOTE
>Recognition of the Church's attitude to science is perhaps best illustrated
>by the words of Pope John Paul II when in October of 1996, he issued a
>message to the Pontifical Academy of Science reaffirming the Roman Catholic
>Church's long-standing position on evolution: that it does not necessarily
>conflict with Christianity. [xiii]
Is that really an accurate interpretation of ALL that John Paul II
wrote?
POPE QUOTE -- Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance
with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging
from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this
matter are incompatiblle with the truth about man. Nor are they able
to ground the dignit of the person....The sciences of observation
describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with
increasing precision and correlate them twith the time line. The
moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this
kind of ovservation, which nevertheless can discover at the
experimental leval a series of very valuable signs indicating what is
specific to the human being. -- UNQUOTE
See also Christoph Schönborn (Cardianl Archibishop, Vienna) in the New
York Times, (July 7, 2005):
"EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term
he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-
Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at
least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend
their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.
"But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science
many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the
light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern
purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living
things.
"Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but
evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process
of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of
thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence
for design in biology is ideology, not science."
Schönborn continuesĆ
"In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists
recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a
satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common
ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological
Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the
commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with
the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists - that is,
synonymous with neo-Darwinism.
"The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching
of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature.
Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on
evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as
a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of
a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence
any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."
"Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary
process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence -
simply cannot exist."
"Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago,
Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product
of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us
is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.""
richardal...@googlemail.com
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "John Wilkins" <j.wilki...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>
> news:1hvbqwg.8dike1rdqj1pN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
>
> [...]
>
> > The mistake here is to see the Church as a single agent who has changed
> > his mind. But the Church is no more a single agent than the United
> > States is, or the Institution of Marriage. It is a corporate entity,
> > with factions, traditions, individuals, internal institutions, external
> > institutions it partakes of, and many. many, different lines of thought.
> > Like any such social corporate entity, it evolves, as populations are
> > wont to do. The only real issue is when people treat it as an agent and
> > want to defend the "agent's" actions in the past.
>
> That IMO is a pretty fair summary except that I think the last statement
> cuts both ways. There are issues when people seek to defend the Church's
> actions in the past but equally there are issues when people try to use past
> actions to attack the Church today. As I've said many times, I find it
> fascinating that so many people who seek to argue that the Church is
> anti-science base their main arguments on events that happened four
> centuries ago.
>
> We should also remember that any human organisation the size of and with the
> power of the Catholic Church will almost inevitably get drawn into politics.
> At the time of Galileo, the Vatican was a major political force within
> Europe although those politics only seem to have a minor effect (if any) on
> the Galileo affair.
Actually, not so. The ideas of Copernicus were seen as part of the
Lutheran heresy, and opposition within the church to Gallileo's ideas
were founded as much on this as the evidence. It can be argued that it
was this political factor which led to the prescription of his work.
Some powerful elements within the church supported him.
Dava Sobel's book, 'Galileo's Daughter: A Historical Memoir of
Science, Faith, and Love ' gives fascinating insights into how the
internal politics of the church at the time.
RF
John Wilkins
I think that the Encyclopedia Britannica is online in an older editions
somewhere.
John Wilkins
"To the Greek and medieval mind, science was a kind of formalism, a
means of coordinating data, which had no bearing on the ultimate reality
of things. Different mathematical devices - such as the Ptolemaic cycles
- could be advanced to predict the movements of the planets, and it was
of no concern to the medieval astronomer whether such devices touched on
the actual physical truth. The point was to give order to complicated
data, and all that mattered was which hypothesis (a key word in the
Galileo affair) was the simplest and most convenient."
This is grossly wrong. Saving the phenomena comes about in the context
of elaborating the Ptolemaic model with epicycles and the like because
more accurate observations made the older one untenable. Science was not
a formalism in this sense, then or later. But initially the Copernican
system was no better than the Ptolemaic, really - it had fewer
epicycles, but because they relied on circular orbits, there was no real
improvement, so the Copernican system was no major improvement if you
wanted reason to think it was true. Not until Kepler was it something
one could think was literally true.
But they have the evidence in the rest of the article, so this is a
matter of a bad conclusion, not a bad article. People say silly shit
about the medievals all the time. Another mistake they make is to say
that Copernicus contradicted common sense. That is only true if you
think that the elaborate Aristotelian physics, in which earth and water
have a natural place in the universe (the centre), and fire and air tend
to move away from it, is "commn sense". Mostly, the objection was that
the Copernican system contradicted *science*. One reason Galileo won the
day was that he redefined physics in a way that made it believeable.
The discussion of Bellarmine strikes me as correct. I think that by the
standards of rational debate of the day, Bellarmine was right.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Bea Mused" <racg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174470446....@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 19, 9:08 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>The Church, of course, has never had a problem with Evolutionary Theory -
>>from the writings of Augustine to the Church's total lack of opposition to
>>the writings of Charles Darwin, the Church has never rejected any
>>scientific
>>theories that are accepted by the scientific community at large.
>
> Does that paragraph square with the opinions expressed in these
> excerpts from The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917)?
>
> QUOTE --
<snip various definitions and points about evolution>
In regards to the discussion about the 'mechanics' of evoution, I think it
is a reasonably fair description in the context of the time it was written
(1917). The article emphasis that the principle of evolution is fully
accepted as an established fact; it raises some question marks about
specific gaps in the evidence *at that time* but repeatedly says that views
on specific aspects of evolution will have to be adjusted as new evidence
becomse available. I don't think you can ask for fairer than that.
It does of course go on to state that in the Church's view,
physical/chemical evolution is not an adequate explanation for man's
development of a 'soul' which is where God comes into play; that is still
the Church's position and I'm not aware of any scientific theory that yet
provides evidence to contradict that belief. I know there is a lot of
research going on in this area but there don't yet seem to be any
significant conclusions .
>>Recognition of the Church's attitude to science is perhaps best
>>illustrated
>>by the words of Pope John Paul II when in October of 1996, he issued a
>>message to the Pontifical Academy of Science reaffirming the Roman
>>Catholic
>>Church's long-standing position on evolution: that it does not necessarily
>>conflict with Christianity. [xiii]
>
> Is that really an accurate interpretation of ALL that John Paul II
> wrote?
>
> POPE QUOTE -- Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance
> with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging
> from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this
> matter are incompatiblle with the truth about man. Nor are they able
> to ground the dignit of the person....The sciences of observation
> describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with
> increasing precision and correlate them twith the time line. The
> moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this
> kind of ovservation, which nevertheless can discover at the
> experimental leval a series of very valuable signs indicating what is
> specific to the human being. -- UNQUOTE
Again, he's talking about man's 'soul' not about physical/chemical
evolution - the rest of his address makes it very clear that the Church has
no quibbles of any sort concerning the scientific facts about evolution.
> See also Christoph Schönborn (Cardianl Archibishop, Vienna) in the New
> York Times, (July 7, 2005):
Ther's been quite a bit of discussion about Schönborn in other parts of this
thread; I've agreed that he needs to be included in any FAQ.
Ilas
news:56b7kjF...@mid.individual.net:
> It would actually be quite interesting if older editions of some other
> encyclopaedias were available online to check contemporary thinking on
> various subjects.
Can I just say, as an ex Catholic, I love watching the nit picking and
listening to the discussions of the "correct" Catholic view of this or that
(or at least what's correct as of 9am today). It's exactly akin to
listening to people discussing whether that teapot is in orbit around
Jupiter or Saturn.
John Wilkins
Don't know about that - JPII struck me as a marginal player at best. But
I agree that you cannot "blame" an institution that is not monolithic in
practice and intent over time for its past actions, one way or the
other.
You might, though, claim that the attitudes and ideas that caused an
action in the past are still in operation in the present.
John Wilkins
Corporate entities as persons (that is, as moral agents) is a fiction
that suits the law. It is not the basis for a metaphysics of social
agency.
TomS
<1hvc8kd.157mb6v87ibopN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
>Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1hvbqwg.8dike1rdqj1pN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>,
>> j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> > The mistake here is to see the Church as a single agent who has changed
>> > his mind. But the Church is no more a single agent than the United
>> > States is, or the Institution of Marriage. It is a corporate entity,
>> > with factions, traditions, individuals, internal institutions, external
>> > institutions it partakes of, and many. many, different lines of thought.
>> > Like any such social corporate entity,
>>
>> But an individual has various centers of attention that are always in
>> conflict. Plan A suits my long term material interests, but plan B makes
>> me look better to the community, but I really want to do C, for example.
>> There is no fixed center as such. For example, as a student I may need
>> to study A, but my buddies want me to come to rehearsal for the class
>> play B, but I really want to go skiing C. But for social purposes we
>> have to hold the person to be an entity and similarly with institutions.
>
>Corporate entities as persons (that is, as moral agents) is a fiction
>that suits the law. It is not the basis for a metaphysics of social
>agency.
But the Church is the Body of Christ.
See "Mystical Body" in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10663a.htm>
--
---Tom S.
"...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)
Ken Shaw
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Ken Shaw" kshaw1...@gmail.com wrote in messagenews:1174403665.3...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 5:07 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> "Ken Shaw" kshaw1...@gmail.com wrote in message
>
> >>news:1174338754.4...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Checking more into the background on this I
> >> found:http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tru/tru_01familysafesex1.html#b20
>
> >> I refer you in particular to the sections on "The Same Concern, From
> >> Non-Ecclesiastical Circles" and "The Workshop Summary: Scientific
> >> Evidence
> >> on Condom Effectiveness For Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD)
> >> Prevention.
>
> >> A research programm involving US Agency for International Development
> >> (USAID), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control
> >> and
> >> Prevention (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). found
> >> that
> >> the failure rate for consoms against STD is about 15%.
>
> > That is not what the study found!
>
> Yes it is. The report itself is available athttp://www3.niaid.nih.gov/research/topics/STI/pdf/condomreport.pdf
>
> From page 14
> <quote>
> Conclusions
> The methodological strength of the studies on condoms to reduce the risk of
> HIV/AIDS transmission far exceeds that for other STDs. There is demonstrated
> exposure to HIV/AIDS through sexual intercourse with a regular partner (with
> an absence of other HIV/AIDS risk factors). Longitudinal studies of HIV-
> sexual partners of HIV+ infected cases allow for the estimation of HIV/AIDS
> incidence among condom users and condom non-users. From the two incidence
> estimates, consistent condom use decreased the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission
> by approximately 85%. These data provide strong evidence for the
> effectiveness of condoms for reducing sexually transmitted HIV.
> </quote>
>
> Please at least get your basic facts right.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
An 85% reduction in the transmission rate of HIV does not equate to
condoms failing 15% of the time.
I explained this to you once and you snipped it.
Be honest and admit that the Cardinal was misrepresenting good
science.
Ken
Googler
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Googler" <GOOGLE.4.godfa...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174359380....@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 19, 7:19 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
Thanks for the reply.
I'll try to address the issues you raised specifically, but I think in
general you have a misunderstanding of the Church's role here. If I
may say so, I think one does have to understand that role to bring a
project such as yours a successful conclusion.
>
> > Actually, the Church *has* issued statements on Christian
> > fundamentalism - insofar as it applies to Biblical interpretation -
> > and has come down soundly against it. In fact, the essential
> > fundamentalist doctrine of sola scriptura is against Catholic
> > teaching, so the Church really could not go any other way.
>
> That has been a long-standing position of the Church, I'm not aware of it
> being a particularly high-profile issue in recent years although AFAIR the
> Church did issue a low-key statement a while back simply reminding Catholics
> that the Church does not endorse a literal interpretation of the Old
> Testament.
I'm not sure what you mean by "high-profile" in this context. I am
personally aware of a lot of recent material from Catholic theologians
and even from official Church documents that are specifically critical
of Biblical fundamentalism, for example, and I don't have access to
anything except what is generally available to the public.
Therefore, I don't know why you consider this to be any more "low-
key" than anything else. If the MSM doesn't choose to write about
this, and chooses to concentrate on other things, then any accusation
of making this "low-key" lies with them.
If you are interested, I can email you a list of sources, some of
which even address 'creationism.'
>
> > I wonder how you could have concluded that the Church is "reluctant"
> > to "condemn" what it considers to be errors of other "religious
> > groups"?
>
> As far as I can see, the Church has taken a more defensive stance in recent
> years, it will certainly react to direct challenges to Church teachings but
> seems to avoid initiating attacks on other religions.
Again, I think you have the wrong end of the stick about this, perhaps
because the American mainstream media doesn't choose to say much about
it and when they do, they tend to get it wrong.
Of course the Catholic Church's reaction is always going to be about
"challenges to church teaching". What else would there be for it to
comment on?
As for "initiating attacks on other religions", I can only point out
to you that the Inquisition closed down a long time ago, and is not
going to start up again. If those are the kind of "attacks" you are
looking for, then with all due respect, you are very naive to think
you would ever find anything like that today. However, if by
"attacks" you mean 'pointing out errors', that happens all the time.
>
> >I hope you are not taking the American Catholic Church as
> > typical. In fact, the common perception around the world is that the
> > Church is *NOT* reluctant to make a point of what it considers to be
> > erroneous doctrines of other religions, even at the expense of inter-
> > religious dialogue.
>
> The only significant example of this in recent times that comes to mind is
> the Pope's comments on Islam last year; even in that case, when the Vatican
> saw the reaction to the comments, it immediately launched into an intensive
> campaign to minimise and repair the damage done.
Please see my comments above.
>
>
>
> >Whether that is actually true or not may be
> > debatable, but that is the perception. How did you come to the
> > precisely opposite conclusion?- Hide quoted text -
John Wilkins
AC
This is the one thing that truly makes me nervous about the Church, or
rather about the membership. There is a distinct dislike, perhaps even
fear of criticizing the clergy, and in particular high-ranking members.
People will bend over backwards to defend some the indefensible
position, or even make believe that an indefensible position wasn't
put forward. A review of my discussions with Googler over Schoenborn
shows the lengths that some Catholics will go to to defend high-ranking
clergy.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Michael Siemon
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
...
> This is grossly wrong. Saving the phenomena comes about in the context
> of elaborating the Ptolemaic model with epicycles and the like because
> more accurate observations made the older one untenable. ...
Umm, I believe that "saving the phenomena" goes back to Plato and the
_Timaeus_. However, I agree with the more general point -- this move
was essentially a retreat from any earlier Greek position that one could
actually get it [physics, more particularly, the planetary system] right
and be sure of that. Aristarchus' heliocentrism was rejected for not
being physically correct [for reasons that become ironic over historical
time...]
John Wilkins
Well we were talking about the late medieval era and the renaissance and
post-reformation. But have you a ref for the Timaeus saying that?
Michael Siemon
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hvcean.1aulwlu9fsenkN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>,
> > j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > This is grossly wrong. Saving the phenomena comes about in the context
> > > of elaborating the Ptolemaic model with epicycles and the like because
> > > more accurate observations made the older one untenable. ...
> >
> > Umm, I believe that "saving the phenomena" goes back to Plato and the
> > _Timaeus_. However, I agree with the more general point -- this move
> > was essentially a retreat from any earlier Greek position that one could
> > actually get it [physics, more particularly, the planetary system] right
> > and be sure of that. Aristarchus' heliocentrism was rejected for not
> > being physically correct [for reasons that become ironic over historical
> > time...]
>
> Well we were talking about the late medieval era and the renaissance and
> post-reformation. But have you a ref for the Timaeus saying that?
At the moment, only vague recollection (which may well be faulty).
I'll see if I can dig it out and find what I was thinking about.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Ken Shaw" <ksha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174490027.5...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
The Cardinal was quoting a research report. Argue the figures whatever way
you like, there is absolutely no way that that can be used to claim that the
Catholic Church "is at variance with an accepted scientific theory" as you
originally said.
Stand back and think about it for a moment, if this and a "dalliance" with
ID by another Cardinal is the very best evidence you can come up with, you
really should be doing some rethinking about your opinion of the Church's
attitude to science.
Mark Isaak
> "Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.03.20....@earthlink.net...
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:23:48 +0000, alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> "Homosexuality is unnatural" and "homosexuality is a mental illness" and
>> "the primary purpose of sex is procreation" and "marriage is defined as
>> one man and one woman" are not moral attitudes; they are falsehoods. And
>> I have heard high-ranking Catholics say all of the above.
>
> What has that to do with science?
Anthropology and biology are sciences.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
alwaysaskingquestions
"Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:1174492165.5...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
That it doesn't get the headlines the way ID does :)
> I am
> personally aware of a lot of recent material from Catholic theologians
> and even from official Church documents that are specifically critical
> of Biblical fundamentalism, for example, and I don't have access to
> anything except what is generally available to the public.
I'm not suggesting that the Church's attitude to fundamentalism has softened
in any way, just that the Church doen't make much of a public fuss about it
> Therefore, I don't know why you consider this to be any more "low-
> key" than anything else. If the MSM doesn't choose to write about
> this, and chooses to concentrate on other things, then any accusation
> of making this "low-key" lies with them.
>
> If you are interested, I can email you a list of sources, some of
> which even address 'creationism.'
Thanks for the offer but I'm well aware of the Church's position on
fundamentalism, I just don't think that it's all that relevent to the FAQ
I'm proposing, other than maybe just stating the position for what it is.
>> > I wonder how you could have concluded that the Church is "reluctant"
>> > to "condemn" what it considers to be errors of other "religious
>> > groups"?
It's all about Ecumenism nowadays, not public squabbles. You don't, for
example, hear "The one true Church" philosophy promoted much nowadays.
[...]
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:18:31 +0000, alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
>
>> "Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2007.03.20....@earthlink.net...
>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:23:48 +0000, alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> "Homosexuality is unnatural" and "homosexuality is a mental illness" and
>>> "the primary purpose of sex is procreation" and "marriage is defined as
>>> one man and one woman" are not moral attitudes; they are falsehoods.
>>> And
>>> I have heard high-ranking Catholics say all of the above.
>>
>> What has that to do with science?
>
> Anthropology and biology are sciences.
If that's the best you can come up with to show the Church is anti-science,
you don't really have much of a case, do you ?
AC
alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Ken Shaw" <ksha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1174490027.5...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 20, 3:13 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> An 85% reduction in the transmission rate of HIV does not equate to
>> condoms failing 15% of the time.
>>
>> I explained this to you once and you snipped it.
>>
>> Be honest and admit that the Cardinal was misrepresenting good
>> science.
>
> The Cardinal was quoting a research report. Argue the figures whatever way
> you like, there is absolutely no way that that can be used to claim that the
> Catholic Church "is at variance with an accepted scientific theory" as you
> originally said.
At the very least we can say the Cardinal doesn't know much about statistical
studies, which begs the question why he felt qualified to comment at all.
Of course, we know exactly why he did, because he was trying to make it sound
like condoms had been scientifically demonstrated to be ineffective.
>
> Stand back and think about it for a moment, if this and a "dalliance" with
> ID by another Cardinal is the very best evidence you can come up with, you
> really should be doing some rethinking about your opinion of the Church's
> attitude to science.
I'd hardly call Schoenborn's cheerleading of ID advocates a "dalliance". The
man made fellow Catholics pretty damned uncomfortable, and his attempt to
"clarify" only made it clearer that he is an ID advocate himself.
I'd just dearly love to hear a Catholic openly condemn Schoenborn, and not
politely re-explain the Church's position and tiptoe around his pro-ID
comments. The man is not a god. He is not capable of speaking ex cathedra,
so come on Catholics, call a goddamned spade and goddamned spade.
Or is it too frightening to think that there are indeed anti-science
anti-intellectual types so high in the Church ranks?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Dan Drake
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We should also remember that any human organisation the size of and with the
> power of the Catholic Church will almost inevitably get drawn into politics.
Absolutely; and I'd respectfully suggest that the FAQ should include more
reference to this.
That is, I *would* suggest if I had really read the entire doucment
thoroughly, which I must now do, instead of cherry-picking the interesting
Galileo stuff.
> At the time of Galileo, the Vatican was a major political force within
> Europe although those politics only seem to have a minor effect (if any) on
> the Galileo affair.
Another view I've seen is that with the Thirty Years War and all, and some
supposed tendency to Sun worship going on [I don't remember the exact
connection], the Church authorities were very nervous about anything that
promoted the Sun to the center of things; hence, a crackdown. I don't
vouch for this; it's just another of those things that go around.
BTW, Dorothy L Sayers, the mystery writer and Anglican apologist who made
a translation of the Divine Comedy and did a lot of research into medieval
astronomy, commented that if Galileo had done his thing back then, he'd
have been fine, because something a bit short of Sun worship was very much
the trend.
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com