Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Hawking program now

[newtonian]

It airs now, repeats in 3 hours, and continues repeating on the Science channel.<br /><br />My opening question:<br /><br />Why does the broadcast lie by stating Galileo contradicted passages in the Bible?<br /><br />The truth is that Galileo questioned church doctrine but accepted the Bible as accurate.<br /><br />The broadcast does correctly note that Galileo was tried by the Inquisition.<br /><br />On Newston, he is shown to be a puritan who adopted strict sexual limits, contrary to crazyeddie's post on my Biblical astronomy thread. The broadcast does, however, indicate some scholars speculate he was homosexual.<br /><br />That is also a contradiction: a puritan with strict sexual limits would not tolerate homosexuality.<br /><br />The broadcast also states alleged and actual faults of other scientists.<br /><br />For example: obsession. However, obsession is given a very bad name - persistence is the same quality viewed in a favorable light. Ditto focused, etc.<br /><br />Certainly, the broadcast correctly notes that these are brilliant scientific minds at work.<br />Now, btw, Hawking (and others) is searching for a theory of everything.<br /><br />Please post comments on the broadcast, or on my notes if you don't have access to the Science channel, or simply on these great scientists and their work.<br /><br />Copernicus is also considered briefly early in the broadcast, btw.

 

[dragon04]

"That is also a contradiction: a puritan with strict sexual limits would not tolerate homosexuality."<br /><br />Jerry Falwell slept with &%$#@!s.<br /><br />So much for strict puritanical limits.<br /><br />Just saying that one can't state with any certainty that Newton wouldn't tolerate homosexuality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[mooware]

He might not tolerate it on paper. But who knows what might have gone through his mind. No one can say for sure.<br />

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">Why does the broadcast lie by stating Galileo contradicted passages in the Bible? <br /><br />The truth is that Galileo questioned church doctrine but accepted the Bible as accurate. <br /><br />The broadcast does correctly note that Galileo was tried by the Inquisition.</font><br /><br /><br />You just answered your own question [sort of]. Galileo was forced by customs of the time to seek patronage for his work [which also afforded him protection from enemies within the hierarchy of the church].<br /><br />Eventually, that patronage was not sufficient to protect him from the inquisition. Church officials were able to see past the metaphors Galileo laid out in 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems' - as an actual supporting document for the Heliocentric model, as opposed to the Geocentric model which the Church supported at that time.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That is also a contradiction: a puritan with strict sexual limits would not tolerate homosexuality. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />To elaborate on what crazyeddie said, it is quite correct that a Puritan would be unlikely to tolerate homosexuality, and could even consider it evidence of demonic influence in his life.<br /><br />Consider, then, just how much Newton would have hated *himself* if he were indeed a homosexual. He would have considered his own desires sinful, hateful, loathsome, and a clear sign of the Devil's influence. Heck, many *heterosexual* Puritans hated themselves for their desire for the opposite sex! And that extended to non-Puritans as well. Luther (certainly a straight man) went into great depths of self-loathing over that very thing. The famous surrealist painter Salvador Dali also loathed himself for his sexual desire for the opposite sex. He seemed to think that because he had sexual thoughts at all, it meant he was sinful. This is actually a conclusion one can very easily reach from Biblical teachings (though it's by no means the only conclusion possible).<br /><br />Puritans didn't really tolerate any kind of sex, homosexual or otherwise. Sex was a duty neccesary for reproduction; sexual desire was satanic temptation, and one should surpress it. Since they felt sex was purely for reproduction, it's pretty easy to see why they didn't tolerate homosexuality; that would be the ultimate example of sex for sexual gratification, which of course they thought was wrong. They would also not have approved of birth control. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

Calli - Well, the broadcast was not detailed on Newton's religion. Puritan is actually too general.<br /><br />There is some research that is more specific - I will have to research it again and post that.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Newton believed in the Bible, simplifying matters. The Bible does not consider sex a mere duty, but a creation of God.<br /><br />For example: <br /><br />(Song of Solomon 8:6-7) ". . ."Place me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm; because love is as strong as death is, insistence on exclusive devotion is as unyielding as She´ol is. Its blazings are the blazings of a fire, the flame of Jah. 7 Many waters themselves are not able to extinguish love, nor can rivers themselves wash it away. If a man would give all the valuable things of his house for love, persons would positively despise them.""<br /><br />The context shows the beauty of loyal romantic love, in some detail which might not be considered puritanical.

 

[newtonian]

5stone10 - First, the broadcast did lie by stating that Galileo contradicted passages in the Bible.<br /><br />You are correct that Galileo contradicted the church doctrine of a geocentric universe.<br /><br />However, the broadcast fostered the incorrect statement, oft repeated in other sources, that the Bible teaches the geocentric model.<br /><br />However, you are wrong about Galileo's position being forced by the customs of the time or the church.<br /><br />The broadcast correctly labels Galileo and the other scientists highlighted as rebels. <br /><br />Galileo, and the others, did not seek to go along with popular customs and beliefs. It was for this very reason that they contributed to scientific advances.<br /><br />Galileo's support of the Bible over church doctrine is what earned him excommunication by the church inquisition.<br /><br />OUr recent article on conflict between science and religion notes how bold Galileo was, and that his using Scripture independent of church interpretation was at the root of his problems with the church:<br /><br />"Unlike Copernicus, Galileo was bold and zealous in promoting his ideas. And he did so in a more hostile religious environment, for the Catholic Church had by then become openly opposed to the Copernican theory. Hence, when Galileo argued that not only was the heliocentric concept correct, the church smelled heresy.<br /><br />[footnote] Galileo unnecessarily made powerful enemies for himself by his quick wit and cutting sarcasm. Also, by arguing that the heliocentric concept harmonized with Scripture, he presented himself as an authority on religion, which further provoked the church.<br /><br />[back to main text] Galileo went to Rome to defend himself, but to no avail. In 1616 the church ordered him to stop advocating Copernicus. Galileo was silenced for a time. Then in 1632 he published another work in support of Copernicus. The very next year, the inquisition sentenced Galileo to life imprisonment. Out of considera

 

[pizzaguy]

Can I take a shot at these two statements?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">However, the broadcast fostered the incorrect statement, oft repeated in other sources, that the Bible teaches the geocentric model. <br /><br />So, again, I ask - why did the broadcast, and other sources, lie by stating Galileo contradicted passages in the Bible?</font><br /><br />From what I have been able to gather in reading about this since I first got interested in it in 1986, it would appear that <i>the church said that the bible said</i> those things. IOW, they taught these things - but I agree, the Bible never teaches a geocentric model. <br /><br />It's really all very political, most of the 'science vs. religion' thing comes from those who want to paint religion as an enemy of science. I have challenged people in the past to show me where the Bible makes incorrect statements about this. They have never been able to: <i>the Bible is NOT intended as a source of knowledge on physics, orbital dynamics, etc.</i> And I dont care if you are a believer or not - when you try to find science fact in the Bible, you are looking for that which is simply not there. <br /><br />Oh, there might be one or two verses, but I can't find them. (Somewhere, the old testament is supposed to say, "He hangeth the earth upon nothing". I have never found that - it's supposed to be an example of the Bible's accuracy on scientific matters.)<br /><br />Again, looking for science in the Bible is like looking for a math lesson in a history book.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1"><em>Note to Dr. Henry:  The testosterone shots are working!</em></font> </div>

 

[5stone10]

"In 1615 he went to Rome to argue on behalf of the merits of the Copernican theory, but the political atmosphere was such that Copernicus' 'De Revolutionibus' was placed on the Index of Prohibited Books in 1616 ... Galileo was warned against promoting the Copernican theory at this time. 'A Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems' first made it past the censors by purporting to be neutral on the astronomical debate."<br /><br />- so Galileo was censored and later put on trial. He was smart enough to realize that he could not continue to be totally open in his support of Copernicus.<br /><br /><br />As to the biblical references, here are Galileo's own words from the introduction to "A Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems".<br /><br />"...Therefore I propose in the present work to show to foreign nations that as much is understood of this matter in Italy, and pariicularly in Rome, as transalpine diligence can ever have imagined Collecting all the reflections thai properly concern the Copernican system, I shall make it known that everything was brought before the attention of the Roman censorship, and that there proceed from this clime not only dogmas for the welfare of the soul, but ingenious discoveries for the delight of the mind as well.<br /><br />To this end I have taken the Copernican side in the disco urse, proceeding as with a pure mathematical hypothesis and striving by every artipee to represent it as superior to supposing the earth motionless ..."<br /><br />Galileo created a metaphoric dialogue to explain the varying positions, including implicitly - his own.<br />"It happened that several discussions had taken place casually at various times among these gentlemen, and had rather whetted than satisfied their thirst for learning. Hence very wisely they resolved to meet together on certain days during which, setting aside all other business, they might apply themselves more methodically to the contemplation ofthe wonders of God in the heavens and upon

 

[pizzaguy]

5stone...<br /><br />I know you didnt' address me, but you did not include any Biblical references in your post. <br />I challenge ANYONE to show me in the Bible where it says:<br /><br />1) The earth is stationary.<br />or<br />2) The earth is the center of the universe or anything else.<br />or<br />3) The sun goes around the earth.<br /><br />It does not, <i>but I do not deny that <b>the CHURCH did say those things.</b></i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1"><em>Note to Dr. Henry:  The testosterone shots are working!</em></font> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

As far as I know, the Bible says none of those things, though if one tries hard enough, they could probably squeeze some kind of alleged support out of a verse of Scripture here or there. (I have a degree in English. I *know* how far you can twist the interpretation of literature! <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> )<br /><br />You are quite correct that the Church said those things. I think it is easy for people to confuse Church doctrine with scripture. One makes the understandable assumption that the Church isn't just making it all up, and that it has to be from the Bible, yet it isn't neccesarily. A lot of doctrine is derived from Scriptural interpretation, not literally quoted. For instance, the Bible doesn't say whether it is unethical to download pirated material from a peer-to-peer service. But since modern law declares this to be a theft of intellectual property, one could argue that the Ten Commandments prohibit downloading pirated material. It's not in the Bible; that would be a derived statement. There are less clear-cut examples, of course, and much of what was solid doctrine in the late Middle Ages and into the Renaissance was not directly drawn from Scripture.<br /><br />Theologans studied the Bible very hard to discover new things. A popular topic for this sort of research was the hierarchy of angels. There aren't many angels named in the book (only two, actually), but I bet you've heard of a lot more, even if you're not Catholic and don't believe in angels. They've even got names. And it's derived from the intense study of Scripture by theologans, though it's worth pointing out that they did also draw from "supporting" documents, such as Jewish and even Muslim texts. (The archangel Raphael is an example of the latter; Muslims call him Israfel.) It was a little bit syncretic in some respects.<br /><br />The whole cosmology described in Dante Aligheri's <i>Divine Comedy</i> (Inferno, Purgatorio, Paradisio) will give you a good look at how <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>