In praise of Darwin and the spirit of inquiry

[Stone Island]

Keith Burgess-Jackson (http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/blog/), Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Arlington, has this comment (http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/blog/2009/02/science-and-religion.html) about Cormac Murphy-O'Connor's column (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5689367.ece) in The Times (UK):
Here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5689367.ece)is a column about the compatibility of science and religion. Not only is there no incompatibility between science and religion; there can't be. Science is an attempt to understand the natural world. It has nothing to say about (1) whether there is a supernatural world or (2) what the supernatural world is like, if there is such a world. Think of the natural world as a box. Science makes claims about what's inside the box. It has nothing to say about what's outside the box. Religion makes claims about what's outside the box.
Murphey-O'Conner notes that Darwin wrote,
“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist.”
x-posted (http://patterico.com/jury/2009/02/12/in-praise-of-darwin-and-the-spirit-of-inquiry/)

[Stone Island]

"Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live" by Carl Safina (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all)

[Stone Island]

"Charles Darwin reminds us not to squander the great legacy of the Victorians" by Simon Heffer (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/4229335/Charles-Darwin-reminds-us-not-to-squander-the-great-legacy-of-the-Victorians.html)

[godless dave]

Here is a column about the compatibility of science and religion. Not only is there no incompatibility between science and religion; there can't be. Science is an attempt to understand the natural world. It has nothing to say about (1) whether there is a supernatural world or (2) what the supernatural world is like, if there is such a world. Think of the natural world as a box. Science makes claims about what's inside the box. It has nothing to say about what's outside the box. Religion makes claims about what's outside the box.

I agree with that. What he fails to mention is that there is absolutely no evidence that there is anything outside the box. And since it's outside the box and we're inside, anything outside is irrelevant to us anyway - unless it crosses into the inside, at which time it comes into the realm of science.

[Stone Island]

What he fails to mention is that there is absolutely no evidence that there is anything outside the box.

What you're missing is that his point is that there is no scientific evidence. Which raises the question as to whether there is a kind of knowledge (justified, true belief) which isn't scientific. Science cannot answer that question; scientifically minded people err when they try and answer that question using science.

[godless dave]

What you're missing is that his point is that there is no scientific evidence.

Is there another kind of evidence?

We, humans, are inside the box. We're in the natural world. Any kind of evidence we can gather is also within the natural world, and thus within the realm of science.

[Stone Island]

Is there another kind of evidence?

We, humans, are inside the box. We're in the natural world. Any kind of evidence we can gather is also within the natural world, and thus within the realm of science.

Dave,

I think you're not being clear.

You keep using the word "evidence" when what I think you mean is "scientific evidence".

It's an open question as to whether justified, true belief (knowledge) is exhausted by science or only occurs as a result of scientific inquiry. As one of my professors loved to point out, science can teach us how to clone; science cannot tell us whether we ought to clone Hitler or Churchill. (And yes, I know that that's not how cloning works, but I think it points to the difference between a technical and a moral question). My assertion is that science can give us the means, but it cannot (and I use that word in the strongest sense) help us decide between ends.

In addition, science as an enterprise is based on some axiomatic suppositions about the nature of the universe and our relationship to it. Those axioms may be wholly justified, and science seems to work they seem to be so, but their justification is not scientific per se; science relies on a justification, philosophy of science, which is itself not an empirical investigation.

[godless dave]

Dave,

I think you're not being clear.

You keep using the word "evidence" when what I think you mean is "scientific evidence".

I was doing that deliberately. By the definition you quoted, science deals with the material world. Therefore, any evidence gathered in the material world will be scientific evidence by that definition of science.

[Iamme]

On the 700 Club,tonight, on The Family Channel, (9:00pmest/10:00pm cst), in light of the fact it is Charles Darwin's 200th birthday today?, they are going to debunk that we came from monkeys.Thought I'd share. Be sure to watch now, with an open mind. :biggrin:

[godless dave]

Dave,


It's an open question as to whether justified, true belief (knowledge) is exhausted by science or only occurs as a result of scientific inquiry. As one of my professors loved to point out, science can teach us how to clone; science cannot tell us whether we ought to clone Hitler or Churchill.

There's your problem - justified, true belief is not a synonym for knowledge. Knowledge would be required to clone Hitler. The decision about whether we "ought" to requires subjective moral judgement, which is not knowledge. Knowledge is required to make an informed judgement (in this case, knowledge about what Hitler and Churchill's personalities were like), but it is not sufficient to make a judgement.

[Twiler]

I don't understand what non-scientific evidence could be. Can anyone give an example? I don't think there can be such a thing.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I don't understand what non-scientific evidence could be. Can anyone give an example? I don't think there can be such a thing.

You just HAVE TO BELIEVE and then it all becomes clear. :duck:

[Foster Zygote]

Science as an enterprise is based on some axiomatic suppositions about the nature of the universe and our relationship to it. Those axioms may be wholly justified, and science seems to work they seem to be so, but their justification is not scientific per se; science relies on a justification, philosophy of science, which is itself not an empirical investigation.
What sort of evidence does "justified, true belief" rely on?

[slingblade]

What sort of evidence does "justified, true belief" rely on?

Not entirely certain, but it includes sugar on porridge.


:p

[Stone Island]

There's your problem - justified, true belief is not a synonym for knowledge. Knowledge would be required to clone Hitler. The decision about whether we "ought" to requires subjective moral judgement, which is not knowledge. Knowledge is required to make an informed judgement (in this case, knowledge about what Hitler and Churchill's personalities were like), but it is not sufficient to make a judgement.

Before we move on, maybe we should settle a basic definitional question. What is knowledge, if not justified, true belief?

[Stone Island]

I don't understand what non-scientific evidence could be. Can anyone give an example? I don't think there can be such a thing.

Mathematics qua mathematics is non-empirical, justified, true belief.

[Stone Island]

Not entirely certain, but it includes sugar on porridge.


:p

**[plonk]**

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree with that. What he fails to mention is that there is absolutely no evidence that there is anything outside the box. And since it's outside the box and we're inside, anything outside is irrelevant to us anyway - unless it crosses into the inside, at which time it comes into the realm of science.
Very well said.

It also fails to mention that everything in the box was at one time or another claimed to be in the realm of religion.

That is, you can make science and religion compatible by keeping religion outside the box, but you have to ignore the beliefs of the people who handed religion down to us who definitely considered religion to make claims about what's inside the box.

Seems funny to admit they were wrong about everything we can test, but still cling to the idea that they were right about the things outside the box that we can't test.

It'd be like entrusting your life savings to Bernard Madoff after we've already learned he's a con man.

[Stone Island]

Seems funny to admit they were wrong about everything we can test, but still cling to the idea that they were right about the things outside the box that we can't test.

What things would those be, for example?

[Foster Zygote]

What things would those be, for example?

You're kidding, yes?

[JoeTheJuggler]

What things would those be, for example?
The existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus, heaven and hell, the existence of souls, the Rapture & Second Coming, etc.

Pretty much all the untestable claims of religion and the supernatural in general.

Maybe you didn't understand what inside and outside the box means?

[Stone Island]

The existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus, heaven and hell, the existence of souls, the Rapture & Second Coming, etc.

Pretty much all the untestable claims of religion and the supernatural in general.

Maybe you didn't understand what inside and outside the box means?

No, I know what outside the box means. I don't think you do, though.

The existence of God, the existence of heaven of hell, the existence of souls, the 2nd coming, etc... aren't scientific claims. Let's repeat that: they aren't scientific claims. Religious folks hold them by faith alone. They were never in the box to begin with.

Christians hold them to be true beliefs, but they aren't, and were never intended to be held as, scientifically justified.

There is an interesting question of whether faith is meant to be justification or to stand in stead of justification.

The resurrection of Jesus (and Lazarus) is a miracle, an explicit violation of general scientific understanding. That's what makes it special.

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, I know what outside the box means. I don't think you do, though.

The existence of God, the existence of heaven of hell, the existence of souls, the 2nd coming, etc... aren't scientific claims. Let's repeat that: they aren't scientific claims. Religious folks hold them by faith alone. They were never in the box to begin with.
Yes. That's what I said.

But everything that is now considered "in the box" was once considered the realm of religion too. Lightning was hurled by Gods; the success or failure of the crops, the weather, disease and healings, etc. all were claimed to have supernatural explanations. The origin of species, the explanation for modern day languages, etc.--the religious explanation turned out to be wrong.

My point is, now that we know those things are wrong, why cling to supernatural explanations for anything?

Doesn't it seem odd that the only stuff left that you can claim God did, are now the untestable things?

The resurrection of Jesus (and Lazarus) is a miracle, an explicit violation of general scientific understanding. That's what makes it special.
Yes, but there was a time when all things that are now in the realm of science (non-special, everyday things like the sun rising and setting and rainstorms) were explained by religion (or at least "the supernatural"). Now all you've got left are these "special" things--the outside the box things that can't be falsified.

On a discussion of astrology, for example, I pointed out that modern astrologers reject the naive (and false) understandings of the ancients (that retrograde motion, for one example, really was the planet changing directions). Yet, they cling to the rest of the teachings of the ancients (what they think are strictly matters of faith) despite the fact that everything testable those people said has proven wrong.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Again, it would be like saying, "Well I know Madoff lied about the worth of these other financial things, but I'm going to trust him to steer me right about this one" while writing a check.

[Stone Island]

My point is, now that we know those things are wrong, why cling to supernatural explanations for anything?

First, I think you have a somewhat skewed understanding of the relationship between science and religion.

Second, what supernatural explanations for scientifically observable phenomenon are religious people clinging to, exactly?

Again, of your list, only the Resurrection is at all theoretically empirical.

[JoeTheJuggler]

First, I think you have a somewhat skewed understanding of the relationship between science and religion.
I think you're just pretending to continue misunderstanding me.

Second, what supernatural explanations for scientifically observable phenomenon are religious people clinging to, exactly?
They're clinging to the supernatural explanations for the stuff that is NOT scientifically testable--despite the fact that everything that is now testable was once given to religious/supernatural explanations.

Please re-read my first post in this thread more carefully.

I'm basically offering a criticism of NOMA. In order to think that science and religion are two separate, compatible ways of explaining different kinds of things (the testable and the untestable, respectively) is to ignore religion's long history of claiming to give explanations for things that were later explained by science.

Basically, religion has had to shrink into the gaps of science. Whenever both offered conflicting explanations for the same phenomena, science was right. So now religion just sticks to the area that science can't reach.*

*ETA: Except of course for a vocal minority of religionists who cling to nutty, long-disproven ideas like Young Earth Creationism, and the like.

[Stone Island]

hey're clinging to the supernatural explanations for the stuff that is NOT scientifically testable
Isn't that what Burgess-Jackson said in the first place?

Maybe you should read the first post again.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Isn't that what Burgess-Jackson said in the first place?
YES IT IS! That's why both Godless Dave and I said we agree with the statement. We just pointed out that the author wasn't considering some important points.

GD's point: that there may be nothing outside the box
My point: that everything inside the box was once also considered the realm of religion.

Maybe you should read the first post again.
I suggest you re-read my first post in this thread again--or at least quit pretending you don't understand what I'm saying. If your reading skills are that poor, this conversation is hopeless. I've had to make the same point at least 3 times now.

[Hokulele]

Mathematics qua mathematics is non-empirical, justified, true belief.


It is justified because it can be tested and its conclusions can be independently, repeatedly, objectively verified.

[KarlG]

On the 700 Club,tonight, on The Family Channel, (9:00pmest/10:00pm cst), in light of the fact it is Charles Darwin's 200th birthday today?, they are going to debunk that we came from monkeys.Thought I'd share. Be sure to watch now, with an open mind. :biggrin:


Do you think that anyone believes we came from monkeys?

[Twiler]

Either what is outside the box can affect what is inside the box, or it cannot.

If it can't, by what measure does it exist? Why should I care about it?

If it can, then what does 'outside the box' MEAN?

[GeeMack]

Do you think that anyone believes we came from monkeys?


From my observation a lot of people who believe other silly things, like that gods exist, seem to believe that people believe that. That belief, like some others they apparently have, seems to help them avoid the effort involved in dealing with reality. Blissful ignorance. And it gives them a funny little straw guy to bat around. Makes them feel special.

[Foster Zygote]

The existence of God, the existence of heaven of hell, the existence of souls, the 2nd coming, etc... aren't scientific claims. Let's repeat that: they aren't scientific claims. Religious folks hold them by faith alone. They were never in the box to begin with.

So you would agree that there is absolutely no reason to believe in any of those things?

[Foster Zygote]

Second, what supernatural explanations for scientifically observable phenomenon are religious people clinging to, exactly/

Let's see...

There is the attempt to present the Great Flood as an explanation for what we observe in modern geology and biology.

There is the claim that the universe was poofed into being a few thousand years ago.

Even now, people are claiming that the wild-fires in Australia are divine retribution for human sin. Similar claims have been made regarding most natural disasters throughout history.

Those are just a few right off the top of my head.

[Soapy Sam]

What you're missing is that his point is that there is no scientific evidence. Which raises the question as to whether there is a kind of knowledge (justified, true belief) which isn't scientific. Science cannot answer that question; scientifically minded people err when they try and answer that question using science.

OK.
Let's answer it without using science..
Here are several possible unscientific answers.
1. Lucky guesses that happen to match the evidence. Or would that be too quasi scientific?
2. Divine inspiration.
3. Just making stuff up at random.
4. Border collie.
5. X34,,wheee!

I feel I'm getting into surreal territory here. This may be because I'm trying to be unscientific. "Scientific" reasoning is just observation with notes. We observe stuff the way we do because that's how stuff is and we are part of that. Stuff.
There are only two ways to know the universe; observation and imagination. The brain is incapable of any other class of activity that produces communicable output.
Science is methodical observation. Fiction is methodical imagination. Occasionally, fiction turns out to be right. That is fortuitous when it happens, but should not be taken to mean fiction is always right.
Imagining things which are "outside the box of reality" is possible up to a point. There is also meta-imagination, the ability to imagine the possibility that there are concepts which are literally unimaginable with our wetware.
I regret I can give no examples, though I believe they exist in mental spaces other than our own. They cannot be communicated.
Belief is a self referential loop. I believe that I can believe concepts I cannot give examples of . But I'm wrong. I can't. I can only believe in labels of concepts.
There is no box. Anything not real is imaginary.

Twaddle.

[Stone Island]

YES IT IS! That's why both Godless Dave and I said we agree with the statement. We just pointed out that the author wasn't considering some important points.

GD's point: that there may be nothing outside the box
My point: that everything inside the box was once also considered the realm of religion.


Your point is wrong. The box has been the same size since at least Aristotle.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Your point is wrong. The box has been the same size since at least Aristotle.
You're still trying to pretend to misunderstand.
I'll quote Burgess-Jackson again:
Science makes claims about what's inside the box. It has nothing to say about what's outside the box. Religion makes claims about what's outside the box.
I'm not saying the box has ever changed. (Inside the box is testable stuff--outside is not.) I'm pointing out that historically, religion has not limited its claims to what's outside the box.

To deny this is to say the Church didn't force Galileo to recant.

It's to deny the Scopes Trial ever happened. It's to deny Edwards v. Aguillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard) ever happened. Or Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education.

These are all examples of religion trying to make claims about what's inside the box.

My point is not even about current forays of religion on inside-the-box turf. Even if you accepted that religion and science peacefully coexist outside or inside the box and never the twain shall meet nowadays, you can't deny that religion wasn't so limited in the past. In fact, as I've pointed out, everything that is explained by science was at one time or another in our past explained by the supernatural.

Fire was stolen from the gods. Spirits inhabited every tree and stone (animism). And on and on.

ETA: Listen, Stone Island, my point is not so earth-shaking or so complicated that it can't be readily understood. Before you post again, please re-read my posts and try to understand what I'm saying.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The existence of God, the existence of heaven of hell, the existence of souls, the 2nd coming, etc... aren't scientific claims. Let's repeat that: they aren't scientific claims. Religious folks hold them by faith alone. They were never in the box to begin with.

Yes they indeed were.

You seem to forget what "the box" means. It means the natural world.*

In fact, "Goddidit" is a claim that has frequently been made about phenomena in the natural world--everything from lightning, natural disasters, miracles, the outcome of a sports event, the change of the seasons, where the wind comes from, etc. are all phenomena or events in the natural world (in the box) that have been given supernatural explanations.

*ETA: Again quoting your guy from your own OP:
Think of the natural world as a box.

[Foster Zygote]

In my opinion, the problem with this whole "box" analogy is that it falsely legitimizes the concept of the supernatural. The fact is that "outside the box" has never been shown to actually exist.

[Stone Island]

To deny this is to say the Church didn't force Galileo to recant.


This is where you go wrong: the Church forced Galileo to recant because he didn't have the math to prove his statements. If you're so wrong about something so basic, how is it that you can insist that it's I who misunderstand?

A real insight into the controversy: Galileo Galilei

"Generally called GALILEO. Born at Pisa, 15 February, 1564; died 8 January, 1642." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm)

[Stone Island]

Yes they indeed were.

You seem to forget what "the box" means. It means the natural world.*

In fact, "Goddidit" is a claim that has frequently been made about phenomena in the natural world--everything from lightning, natural disasters, miracles, the outcome of a sports event, the change of the seasons, where the wind comes from, etc. are all phenomena or events in the natural world (in the box) that have been given supernatural explanations.

*ETA: Again quoting your guy from your own OP:

Who, exactly, are making these claims?

I'm sure that somewhere, sometime, some religious person said something that was, on their part, a mistake or misunderstanding. However, religion qua religion and science qua science have been where they are today since at least Aristotle.

[Foster Zygote]

This is where you go wrong: the Church forced Galileo to recant because he didn't have the math to prove his statements. If you're so wrong about something so basic, how is it that you can insist that it's I who misunderstand?

Bollocks.

I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General against heretical depravity throughout the entire Christian commonwealth, having before my eyes and touching with my hands, the Holy Gospels, swear that I have always believed, do believe, and by God's help will in the future believe, all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas -- after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture -- I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this new doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these, and for this reason I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves:
Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion, justly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error, heresy, and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be. Further, I swear and promise to fulfill and observe in their integrity all penances that have been, or that shall be, imposed upon me by this Holy Office. And, in the event of my contravening, (which God forbid) any of these my promises and oaths, I submit myself to all the pains and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. So help me God, and these His Holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands.

I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of my abjuration, and recited it word for word at Rome, in the Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633.

I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand.

Galileo's observations of Jovian satellites and the phases of Venus were sufficient to disprove the Aristotelian ideas of Geocentricism then favored by the church, regardless of any mathematical calculations. Galileo was forced to recant because he contradicted the Church's erroneous proclamations about the nature of the universe, not because he hadn't invented calculus.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Who, exactly, are making these claims?
I cited several examples already. Why are you ignoring them?

I'm sure that somewhere, sometime, some religious person said something that was, on their part, a mistake or misunderstanding. However, religion qua religion and science qua science have been where they are today since at least Aristotle.
That's just not true (if by "have been where they are" you mean the one only making claims about things inside the box and the other only making claims about things outside the box. Again, I cited several examples.

In Edwards vs. Aguillard, do you suppose it was scientists pushing to have Creationism taught in public school science classes?

Do you know what the term "cdesign proponentsists" refers to?

Turn on the TV and you'll see plenty of preachers claiming intercessory prayer "works" (that is, has an effect on events in the natural world).

Or maybe you could visit the Creation Museum (http://www.creationmuseum.org/) to see a nice and neat separation of the realms of science and religion.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is where you go wrong: the Church forced Galileo to recant because he didn't have the math to prove his statements. If you're so wrong about something so basic, how is it that you can insist that it's I who misunderstand?

A real insight into the controversy: Galileo Galilei

"Generally called GALILEO. Born at Pisa, 15 February, 1564; died 8 January, 1642." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm)

Stoney---you're quoting from a Catholic website! In other words, now you're getting your science history from the pulpit. And you're doing this, ostensibly, to show that religion has never involved itself in the inside of "the box" (that is that religion hasn't made claims about the natural world) since Aristotle?

Use your head.

Furthermore, my point was that at one time (perhaps even BEFORE Aristotle) everything that is now considered the realm of science (that is "in the box") was once explained solely by religion and the supernatural. So even if your absurd assessment of history since Aristotle were true (and it's not), you still wouldn't be refuting my point.

[Foster Zygote]

Stoney---you're quoting from a Catholic website! In other words, now you're getting your science history from the pulpit.

And quite a biased history it is.

[Stone Island]

Stoney---you're quoting from a Catholic website! In other words, now you're getting your science history from the pulpit. And you're doing this, ostensibly, to show that religion has never involved itself in the inside of "the box" (that is that religion hasn't made claims about the natural world) since Aristotle?


I think there is a logical fallacy on your part there.

If they're wrong show me how they're wrong.

Aurther Koestler's book, The Sleepwalkers, is good on this point as well.

[Stone Island]

I cited several examples already. Why are you ignoring them?


That's just not true (if by "have been where they are" you mean the one only making claims about things inside the box and the other only making claims about things outside the box. Again, I cited several examples.

In Edwards vs. Aguillard, do you suppose it was scientists pushing to have Creationism taught in public school science classes?

Do you know what the term "cdesign proponentsists" refers to?

Turn on the TV and you'll see plenty of preachers claiming intercessory prayer "works" (that is, has an effect on events in the natural world).

Or maybe you could visit the Creation Museum (http://www.creationmuseum.org/) to see a nice and neat separation of the realms of science and religion.

"Atheistic" political ideologies in China and the Soviet Union lead the to the deaths of millions of people in the 20th Century. Note: these people referred to themselves as atheists. Was this atheism qua atheism or some misunderstanding or perversion?

Who counts as a flake and who counts as serious?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think there is a logical fallacy on your part there.

If they're wrong show me how they're wrong.

Aurther Koestler's book, The Sleepwalkers, is good on this point as well.
Nope--no logical fallacy here. (If there is, would you care to name it?)

I'm not even arguing that they're wrong (although they probably are).

I'm pointing out that YOU are trying to make the case that religion doesn't make claims about what's inside the box, yet here YOU are using a religious account of history (part of the natural world--i.e. "inside the box") to make your case!!

You don't get it?

The history of science is part of the natural world. That's something Burgess-Johnson says that religions don't make claims about. Yet you've linked to an example of a religion making a claim about something in the natural world (inside the box).

Further, even if the account of the Church is correct, that it was opposed to continued research and publications on the heliocentric model because they didn't yet have a strong enough case to overturn the geocentric model, you're still fully admitting that religion is making claims to stuff that's most definitely inside the box.

And also how terribly wrong the Church's position was, even if events were as they claim. If there wasn't sufficient evidence yet to overturn an old theory, and at least some very strong evidence for the new one, you don't determine which is correct by banning discussion and research on the new one, declaring the old one to be dogma and branding proponents of the new one "heretics".

If religion was not making claims about matters that are inside the box, what was Galileo sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life for? As far as I know. Galileo never said anything contrary to Church doctrine on any matter that is "outside the box". His work was entirely limited to the natural world (inside the box).

[Foster Zygote]

Hey Stoney, can atheists be good citizens?

[JoeTheJuggler]

"Atheistic" political ideologies in China and the Soviet Union lead the to the deaths of millions of people in the 20th Century. Note: these people referred to themselves as atheists. Was this atheism qua atheism or some misunderstanding or perversion?
This is a complete non-sequitur. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my comments. I was giving you a list of examples of religion making claims about stuff that's "inside the box".

I think maybe you're getting this thread confused with the thread about the harm caused by religion relative to harm caused by non-religious institutions.

This stuff here has nothing to do with the point about religion only making claims about stuff that's "outside the box" (outside of the natural world).


Who counts as a flake and who counts as serious?
You're definitely making a case for yourself as a flake.

[Foster Zygote]

If religion was not making claims about matters that are inside the box, what was Galileo sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life for? As far as I know. Galileo never said anything contrary to Church doctrine on any matter that is "outside the box". His work was entirely limited to the natural world (inside the box).

That linked article is a rather clumsy attempt to direct attention away from the fact that the RCC had, in fact, made a scripturally based proclamation regarding the nature of the universe which was entirely wrong. The author labors to portray the Church as being open minded in their acceptance of Copernicus' model. In fact, the author paints the Church as being much more liberally minded than Copernicus' fellow academics. What the article fails to mention is that Copernicus' work was tolerated as a simpler method of calculating the motions of the planets that did not necessarily reflect reality. Galileo didn't need to do the math, Copernicus had already done so. What Galileo did was present evidence that the Copernican model did indeed reflect the true nature of the known universe.

[Foster Zygote]

You're definitely making a case for yourself as a flake.

That's gonna get you a *plonk*.

[JoeTheJuggler]

That linked article is a rather clumsy attempt to direct attention away from the fact that the RCC had, in fact, made a scripturally based proclamation regarding the nature of the universe which was entirely wrong.
Yup.

My point was, for purposes of this discussion (Stoney defending the proposition that religion only makes claims about things "outside the box"), it doesn't matter if the Church was right or wrong. It's still an example of religion making claims about matters that are clearly inside the box.

It was ironic that in trying to support his case (that religion only makes claims on "outside the box" things), Stoney cited a religion's account of science history.

Right or wrong, if he gets his science (or even his history) from the pulpit, he's already made my case for me!

[Foster Zygote]

Yup.

My point was, for purposes of this discussion (Stoney defending the proposition that religion only makes claims about things "outside the box"), it doesn't matter if the Church was right or wrong. It's still an example of religion making claims about matters that are clearly inside the box.

It was ironic that in trying to support his case (that religion only makes claims on "outside the box" things), Stoney cited a religion's account of science history.

Right or wrong, if he gets his science (or even his history) from the pulpit, he's already made my case for me!

I've never agreed with the whole "non-overlapping magisteria" idea. The things that are supposed to lie outside the realm of science have never been demonstrated to exist anywhere other than in the human imagination, which is an area that most certainly is within the realm of scientific inquiry. Inside "the box", the scientific method has proved far superior to religious revelation as a means of understanding the universe. In contrast, outside "the box" has never even been shown to exist in any meaningful way.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've never agreed with the whole "non-overlapping magisteria" idea. The things that are supposed to lie outside the realm of science have never been demonstrated to exist anywhere other than in the human imagination, which is an area that most certainly is within the realm of scientific inquiry. Inside "the box", the scientific method has proved far superior to religious revelation as a means of understanding the universe. In contrast, outside "the box" has never even been shown to exist in any meaningful way.

Yup.

That was the point Godless Dave made above. Inside the box is all that we know is real. It doesn't bother me if religion wants to speculate on something else (that we have no reason to believe even exists).

The fact is religion has never ever limited itself to making claims about "outside the box" stuff. I was willing to pretend that that's the case nowadays in order to point out that everything "in the box" was once the subject of claims by religion.

But the truth is, NOMA has never been an accurate description of the relationship between science and religion.

[Stone Island]

This is a complete non-sequitur. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my comments. I was giving you a list of examples of religion making claims about stuff that's "inside the box".

I'm not confused.

People can make all sorts of claims. Those claims need not be taken seriously.

Religion qua religion doesn't make those kinds of claims. Just atheism isn't necessarily associated with mass murder, though in two notable cases it was.

[Stone Island]

Further, even if the account of the Church is correct, that it was opposed to continued research and publications on the heliocentric model because they didn't yet have a strong enough case to overturn the geocentric model, you're still fully admitting that religion is making claims to stuff that's most definitely inside the box.

The Church was acting in it's political capacity, not as a matter of religious doctrine.

Your fallacy: A religious person making a case isn't necessarily making a religious case.

You're confusing "religion", with "a religion" aka a particular Church.

[Mashuna]

The Church was acting in it's political capacity, not as a matter of religious doctrine.

Your fallacy: A religious person making a case isn't necessarily making a religious case.

You're confusing "religion", with "a religion" aka a particular Church.

Foster Zygote's quotation probably bears repetition here:

I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General against heretical depravity throughout the entire Christian commonwealth, having before my eyes and touching with my hands, the Holy Gospels, swear that I have always believed, do believe, and by God's help will in the future believe, all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas -- after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture -- I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this new doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these, and for this reason I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves:
Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion, justly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error, heresy, and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be. Further, I swear and promise to fulfill and observe in their integrity all penances that have been, or that shall be, imposed upon me by this Holy Office. And, in the event of my contravening, (which God forbid) any of these my promises and oaths, I submit myself to all the pains and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. So help me God, and these His Holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands.

I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of my abjuration, and recited it word for word at Rome, in the Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633.

I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand.

Now you can still claim that the Catholic Church isn't religion, and that although they use the terms doctrine and heresy, it's not a doctrinal or religious argument they're making, but it's one heck of a no true Scotsman fallacy you'd be going for.

[Stone Island]

Foster Zygote's quotation probably bears repetition here:


Now you can still claim that the Catholic Church isn't religion, and that although they use the terms doctrine and heresy, it's not a doctrinal or religious argument they're making, but it's one heck of a no true Scotsman fallacy you'd be going for.

No true vegetarian eats meat.

[Mashuna]

No true vegetarian eats meat.

Your analogy only works if you define religion as not interfering with science. Since people have provided many examples of this happening, you're forced into cutting off (excommunicating?) well, pretty much all organised religion as not being religious.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The Church was acting in it's[sic] political capacity, not as a matter of religious doctrine.
You're kidding, right?


The first complaints: (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html)
In 1613, just as Galileo published his Letters on the Solar Spots, an openly Copernican writing, the first attack came from a Dominican friar and professor of ecclesiastical history in Florence, Father Lorini. Preaching on All Soul's Day, Lorini said that Copernican doctrine violated Scripture, which clearly places Earth, and not the Sun at the center of the universe.

On Feb. 25, 1616 (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/admonition.html), Galileo was enjoined by the Church to "relinquish the opinion that the Sun is in the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves".

Shortly afterward, the Church prohibited publication of the Copernican theory "which is false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture".

In 1633, Galileo was tried for suspicion of heresy. His sentence (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html) begins:

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture:

And later says,
Invoking, therefore, the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His most glorious Mother, ever Virgin Mary, but this our final sentence, which sitting in judgment, with the counsel and advice of the Reverend Masters of sacred theology and Doctors of both Laws, our assessors, we deliver in these writings, in the cause and causes at present before us between the Magnificent Carlo Sinceri, Doctor of both Laws, Proctor Fiscal of this Holy Office, of the one part, and your Galileo Galilei, the defendant, here present, examined, tried, and confessed as shown above, of the other part—

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves

This is clearly a matter of science and religion colliding. This is explicitly a matter of science conflicting with church doctrine and not a matter of the Church as a purely political entity.



Your fallacy: A religious person making a case isn't necessarily making a religious case.
Nope. You're just wrong. I very carefully distinguished between the actions of an individual (like a priest raping a child) from those of the religion itself (as for example, the sentencing of Galileo given above which is clearly religiously-based).

You're confusing "religion", with "a religion" aka a particular Church.
That's absurd.

For me to disprove the proposition that religion only makes claims about what's outside the box, I only have to show an example of a religion making claims about what's inside the box.

The general term "religion" is used collectively to refer to the various religions. To say "religion" makes no claims about what's inside the box is logically the same as saying "no religion makes claims about what's inside the box" or "all religions only make claims about what's outside the box". I can disprove either of these statements by showing an example of one religion making a claim about what's inside the box.

If it's otherwise, what would you take to be the burden of proof for me to disprove the statement that religion only makes claims about what's outside the box?

[JoeTheJuggler]

No true vegetarian eats meat.

Yes, that's the example used in the page I linked to, isn't it? (Or maybe I'm thinking of the other thread.) Here's the page (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/No_True_Scotsman).

Not eating meat is part of the definition of being a vegetarian.

However, not doing harm is certainly NOT part of the definition of a religion (or as the page cited words it "not an explicit requirement" for membership in that class).

If it is a requirement, then can you come up with an example of what is truly a religion? And you would deny that the vast majority of religions as we conventionally use the term are not truly religions?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Religion qua religion doesn't make those kinds of claims.
Yes, in fact it does.

Please see again the wording of the sentence against Galileo. It even invoked the name of Jesus and Mary!!

[AWPrime]

As one of my professors loved to point out, science can teach us how to clone; science cannot tell us whether we ought to clone Hitler or Churchill. (And yes, I know that that's not how cloning works, but I think it points to the difference between a technical and a moral question). My assertion is that science can give us the means, but it cannot (and I use that word in the strongest sense) help us decide between ends.Yet religion fails on both counts.

[gumboot]

In my experience this line of reasoning comes from people that really do not understand what science is. They have this notion that science covers a particular realm of existence, and other "paranormal" things are somehow outside science.

That's not how it works at all. Science is nothing more than a method by which we determine reality. It happens to be a far superior method to those used in the past, so has come to supersede all other methods. One of those inferior methods is religion. Religion has the disadvantage of routinely being completely wrong, and incapable of correction. Science has the not insignificant advantage of routinely being completely correct, but more importantly, of being infinitely correctable.

The problem with the "box" analogy is you're missing this basic principle of science; everything by definition is in the box. The box constitutes all existence, in any form. If some sort of spiritual god exists, they are in the box, and are part of "science".

The key thing is, while everything is contained in the box, we don't necessarily have awareness of everything in the box. Our awareness grows daily, but this doesn't constitute an expansion of the box. When man discovered the earth was round, it didn't suddenly jump from outside the box to inside. The earth was always round. It was always in the box. We just didn't know it.

So it is with God, and souls, and the afterlife. They're either in the box, or they don't exist. Just because we haven't discovered them yet doesn't mean they're not in the box, and if they are in the box we still may not ever realise they're in the box, but the fact remains that they are either in the box, or they are figments of human imagination.

There is nothing outside the box.

[MG1962]

Let's see...

There is the attempt to present the Great Flood as an explanation for what we observe in modern geology and biology.

There is the claim that the universe was poofed into being a few thousand years ago.

Even now, people are claiming that the wild-fires in Australia are divine retribution for human sin. Similar claims have been made regarding most natural disasters throughout history.

Those are just a few right off the top of my head.

And Fred Hoyle believed in the spontanious appearence of matter in the universe. Does that make all scientists wrong?

[JoeTheJuggler]

And Fred Hoyle believed in the spontanious appearence of matter in the universe. Does that make all scientists wrong?
You've misunderstood the line of argumentation here.

The stuff you quoted from F.Z. is valid refutation of the proposition that religion only makes claims of stuff "outside the box" (i.e. outside the natural world). (It's basically a version of the NOMA position.)

For this argument, it doesn't matter if these claims are right or wrong--that's beside the point. The point is that religion always has made claims about stuff inside the box. It's not that we're using a wrong assertion of some believers to condemn religious belief. Instead we're pointing out that the Burgess-Johnson is wrong to say that religion only makes claims about the stuff "outside the box". Religion has a long history of making claims about the natural world.

[UnrepentantSinner]

On the 700 Club,tonight, on The Family Channel, (9:00pmest/10:00pm cst), in light of the fact it is Charles Darwin's 200th birthday today?, they are going to debunk that we came from monkeys.Thought I'd share. Be sure to watch now, with an open mind. :biggrin:

Did you watch it? How was it?

I had the mental fortitute to listen to about 35 minutes of Michael Medved mutually masturbating his fellow DIer John West the other night. Straw men and softballs all over the place.

[Dr Adequate]

This is where you go wrong: the Church forced Galileo to recant because he didn't have the math to prove his statements. The condemnation of Galileo:

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture:

This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

But whereas it was desired at that time to deal leniently with you, it was decreed at the Holy Congregation held before His Holiness on the twenty-fifth of February, 1616, that his Eminence the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine should order you to abandon altogether the said false doctrine and, in the event of your refusal, that an injunction should be imposed upon you by the Commissary of the Holy Office to give up the said doctrine and not to teach it to others, not to defend it, nor even to discuss it; and your failing your acquiescence in this injunction, that you should be imprisoned. In execution of this decree, on the following day at the palace of and in the presence of the Cardinal Bellarmine, after being gently admonished by the said Lord Cardinal, the command was enjoined upon you by the Father Commissary of the Holy Office of that time, before a notary and witnesses, that you were altogether to abandon the said false opinion and not in the future to hold or defend or teach it in any way whatsoever, neither verbally nor in writing; and upon your promising to obey, you were dismissed.

And in order that a doctrine so pernicious might be wholly rooted out and not insinuate itself further to the grave prejudice of Catholic truth, a decree was issued by the Holy Congregation of the Index prohibiting the books which treat of this doctrine and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.

And whereas a book appeared here recently, printed last year at Florence, the title of which shows that you were the author, this title being: “Dialogue of Galileo Galilei on the Great World System:”; and whereas the Holy Congregation was afterward informed that through the publication of said book the false opinion of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun was daily gaining round, the said book was taken into careful consideration, and in it there was discovered a patent violation of the aforesaid injunction that had been imposed upon you, for in this book you have defended the said opinion previously condemned and to your face declared to be so, although in the said book you strive by various devices to produce the impression that you leave it undecided, and in express terms as probably: which, however, is a most grievous error, as an opinion can in no wise be probable which has been declared and defined to be contrary to divine Scripture.

Therefore by our order you were cited before this Holy office, where, being examined upon our oath, you acknowledged the book to be written and published by you. You confessed that you began to write the said book about ten or twelve years ago, after the command had been imposed upon you as above; that you requested license ot print it without, however, intimating to those who granted you this license that you had been commanded not to hold, defend, or teach the doctrine in question in any way whatever.

You likewise confessed that the writing of the said book is in many places drawn up in such a form that the reader might fancy that the arguments brought forward on the false side are calculated by their cogency to compel conviction rather than to be easy of refutation, excusing yourself for having fallen into an error, as you alleged, so foreign to your intention, by the fact that you had written in dialogue and by the natural complacency that every man feels in regard to his own subtleties and in showing himself more clever than the generality of men in devising, even on behalf of false propositions, ingenious and plausible arguments.

And a suitable term having been assigned to you to prepare your defense, you produced a certificate in the handwriting of his Eminence the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, procured by you, as you asserted, in order to defend yourself against the calumnies of your enemies, who charged that you had abjured and had been punished by the Holy Office, in which certificate it is declared that you had not abjured and had not been punished but only that the declaration made by His Holiness and published by the Holy Congregation of the Index has been announced to you, wherein it is declared that the doctrine of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held. And, as in this certificate there is no mention of the two articles of the injunction, namely, the order not “to teach” and “in any way,” you represented that we ought to believe that in the course of fourteen or sixteen years you had lost all memory of them and that this was why you said nothing of the injunction when you requested permission to print your book. And all this you urged not by way of excuse for your error but that it might be set down to a vainglorious ambitions rather than to malice. But his certificate produced by you in your defense has only aggravated your delinquency, since, although it is there stated that said opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture, you have nevertheless dared to discuss and defend it and to argue its probability; nor does the license artfully and cunningly extorted by you avail you anything, since you did not notify the command imposed upon you.

And whereas it appeared to us that you had not stated the full truth with regard to your intention, we thought it necessary to subject you to a rigorous examination at which (without prejudice, however, to the matters confessed by you and set forth as above with regard to your said intention) you answered like a good Catholic. Therefore, having seen and maturely considered the merits of this your cause, together with your confessions and excuses above-mentioned, and all that ought justly to be seen and considered, we have arrived at the underwritten final sentence against you:

Invoking, therefore, the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His most glorious Mother, ever Virgin Mary, but this our final sentence, which sitting in judgment, with the counsel and advice of the Reverend Masters of sacred theology and Doctors of both Laws, our assessors, we deliver in these writings, in the cause and causes at present before us between the Magnificent Carlo Sinceri, Doctor of both Laws, Proctor Fiscal of this Holy Office, of the one part, and your Galileo Galilei, the defendant, here present, examined, tried, and confessed as shown above, of the other part—

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.

And in order that this your grave and pernicious error and transgression may not remain altogether unpunished and that you may be more cautious in the future and an example to others that they may abstain from similar delinquencies, we ordain that the book of the “Dialogues of Galileo Galilei” be prohibited by public edict.

We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy office during our pleasure, and by way of salutary penance we enjoin that for three years to come you repeat once a week at the seven penitential Psalms. Reserving to ourselves liberty to moderate, commute or take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and penance.

And so we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, ordain, and reserve in this and in any other better way and form which we can and may rightfully employ.

F. Cardinal of Ascoli
B. Cardinal Gessi
G. Cardinal Bentivoglio
F. Cardinal Verospi
Fr. D. Cardinal of Cremona
M. Cardinal Ginetti
Fr. Ant. s Cardinal of. S. Onofrio

If you're so wrong about something so basic, how is it that you can insist that it's I who misunderstand?

[MG1962]

You've misunderstood the line of argumentation here.

The stuff you quoted from F.Z. is valid refutation of the proposition that religion only makes claims of stuff "outside the box" (i.e. outside the natural world). (It's basically a version of the NOMA position.)

For this argument, it doesn't matter if these claims are right or wrong--that's beside the point. The point is that religion always has made claims about stuff inside the box. It's not that we're using a wrong assertion of some believers to condemn religious belief. Instead we're pointing out that the Burgess-Johnson is wrong to say that religion only makes claims about the stuff "outside the box". Religion has a long history of making claims about the natural world.

I was pointing out that such claims as the Flood and young age of the Universe are not blanket beliefs. That in all areas people can be found promoting beliefs outside the norm.

Some Chrisitans do try to push the concepts you highlight, The vast majority dont

[GeeMack]

I was pointing out that such claims as the Flood and young age of the Universe are not blanket beliefs. That in all areas people can be found promoting beliefs outside the norm.

Some Chrisitans do try to push the concepts you highlight, The vast majority dont


So is it that the vast majority of Christians don't pray, or don't believe their praying will affect things inside-the-box, or that you're wrong?

[Foster Zygote]

I was pointing out that such claims as the Flood and young age of the Universe are not blanket beliefs. That in all areas people can be found promoting beliefs outside the norm.

Some Chrisitans do try to push the concepts you highlight, The vast majority dont

This is still irrelevant. Stone Island demanded to know what sort of religious claims have been made about the physical universe subject to scientific inquiry. I provided a few examples. I made no implication that the examples I gave were universal beliefs. You are disputing a claim that was never made by me.

[MG1962]

So is it that the vast majority of Christians don't pray, or don't believe their praying will affect things inside-the-box, or that you're wrong?

Sorry I am not sure I am following the relevence of what I said, to your response

[MG1962]

This is still irrelevant. Stone Island demanded to know what sort of religious claims have been made about the physical universe subject to scientific inquiry. I provided a few examples. I made no implication that the examples I gave were universal beliefs. You are disputing a claim that was never made by me.

In post #34 you used the term "Religious People" that is a blanket statement. You didn't say "Some religious people" "A few faiths" etc. You used languge to create a universal encompassment.............................

[Foster Zygote]

In post #34 you used the term "Religious People" that is a blanket statement. You didn't say "Some religious people" "A few faiths" etc. You used languge to create a universal encompassment

You are incorrect. Please look at post #34 again.

[MG1962]

You are incorrect. Please look at post #34 again.

LOL - far to cute by far

[JoeTheJuggler]

I was pointing out that such claims as the Flood and young age of the Universe are not blanket beliefs. That in all areas people can be found promoting beliefs outside the norm.

Some Chrisitans do try to push the concepts you highlight, The vast majority dont

Yes I realize that.

So does the fact that some Christians do believe those things (and some don't) support or refute the claim that religion doesn't make claims about the natural world (stuff "inside the box")?

[godless dave]

Before we move on, maybe we should settle a basic definitional question. What is knowledge, if not justified, true belief?

Knowledge is a body of facts accumulated in the course of time.

"Justified true beliefs" is redundant. If beliefs are true, they don't have to be justified.

[Safe-Keeper]

Before we move on, maybe we should settle a basic definitional question. What is knowledge, if not justified, true belief? Justified, true belief, as opposed to blind faith without any kind of justification?

[godless dave]

No, I know what outside the box means. I don't think you do, though.

The existence of God, the existence of heaven of hell, the existence of souls, the 2nd coming, etc... aren't scientific claims.

...

The resurrection of Jesus (and Lazarus) is a miracle, an explicit violation of general scientific understanding.

Two of those examples (the existence of God and the existence of heaven and hell) are outside the box, but two are inside. The second coming, if it would have taken place, would have been inside the box because it would have happened inside the universe, here on earth. Ditto the ressurection of Jesus. Jesus had a physical body. If it had come back to life here on earth, it would have been in the realm of science, if there had been any scientists around at the time.

Who, exactly, are making these claims?


Hundreds of millions of religious people all over the world.

I'm not confused.

People can make all sorts of claims. Those claims need not be taken seriously.

Religion qua religion doesn't make those kinds of claims.

Religion can't make claims because a concept can't make claims. We're talking about claims made by clergymen, theologians, and, most importantly, believers based on their religious beliefs.

[Foster Zygote]

LOL - far to cute by far

What?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry I am not sure I am following the relevence of what I said, to your response

That makes two of us.

[GeeMack]

Sorry I am not sure I am following the relevence of what I said, to your response


I'm pretty sure I'm not following the relevance of what you said, either. But in case your word salad means you didn't understand my comment relative to what you had said, let me try again. JoeTheJuggler was explaining that religions, in general, do make claims that the supernatural stuff is part of, or at least interacts with the inside-the-box natural world stuff. Here...

For this argument, it doesn't matter if these claims are right or wrong--that's beside the point. The point is that religion always has made claims about stuff inside the box. It's not that we're using a wrong assertion of some believers to condemn religious belief. Instead we're pointing out that the Burgess-Johnson is wrong to say that religion only makes claims about the stuff "outside the box". Religion has a long history of making claims about the natural world.


You seemed to be disputing that. In this comment, it appeared you were accepting that some Christians do make those claims, but that the vast majority of them don't...

I was pointing out that such claims as the Flood and young age of the Universe are not blanket beliefs. That in all areas people can be found promoting beliefs outside the norm.

Some Chrisitans do try to push the concepts you highlight, The vast majority dont


I was simply reminding you that the vast majority of Christians do indeed claim the supernatural stuff, the realm outside-the-box, has some explanatory power about or interacts with the natural world, the inside-the-box stuff. So I said...

So is it that the vast majority of Christians don't pray, or don't believe their praying will affect things inside-the-box, or that you're wrong?


Now maybe I misunderstood you, since your comments are often poorly constructed. But leaving that aside, I'm sure you agree that the vast majority of Christians do indeed think the supernatural is not just outside-the-box stuff, that it is part of, explains, and/or interacts with at least parts of the natural world.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You seemed to be disputing that. In this comment, it appeared you were accepting that some Christians do make those claims, but that the vast majority of them don't...
That was in regard to those particular claims (the ones Foster Zygote posted). I don't know whether or not those are things the majority of Christians believe, but I rather think they're not.

In general, though, the fact that some Christians makes those claim is enough to refute the assertion that religion only makes claims about outside the box stuff, and that a nice-happy NOMA co-existence is an accurate characterization of the relationship between science and religion.

[Stone Island]

Knowledge is a body of facts accumulated in the course of time.

"Justified true beliefs" is redundant. If beliefs are true, they don't have to be justified.

Facts and the webs of theories that tie together those facts.

To be my knowledge they have to be justified.

For instance, I could learn by rote all sorts of interesting formulas and equations. They would true. I could even believe them. But I wouldn't be justified in my belief because I wouldn't really understand them.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is where you go wrong: the Church forced Galileo to recant because he didn't have the math to prove his statements. If you're so wrong about something so basic, how is it that you can insist that it's I who misunderstand?

By the way, have you had a chance to read the original documents several of us have posted that demonstrate beyond any doubt how wrong you are on this Galileo thing?

Also, have you realized yet how ironic it is that in defending the claim that religion makes no claims about stuff inside the box, you used a Catholic website to do your science history research?

(In other words, you cited an example of religion making inside-the-box claims in order to argue that it doesn't!)

And have you read the documents provided (the official sentencing statement for one) that shows beyond any doubt that this was an official Church thing and not the action of an individual member of the Church? (To use your phrasing, solid proof that it was "religion qua religion" that accused and punished Galileo of the heresy of promoting ideas that conflicted with scriptures.)

[Stone Island]

By the way, have you had a chance to read the original documents several of us have posted that demonstrate beyond any doubt how wrong you are on this Galileo thing?

Also, have you realized yet how ironic it is that in defending the claim that religion makes no claims about stuff inside the box, you used a Catholic website to do your science history research?

(In other words, you cited an example of religion making inside-the-box claims in order to argue that it doesn't!)

And have you read the documents provided (the official sentencing statement for one) that shows beyond any doubt that this was an official Church thing and not the action of an individual member of the Church? (To use your phrasing, solid proof that it was "religion qua religion" that accused and punished Galileo of the heresy of promoting ideas that conflicted with scriptures.)

Joe, is that the only evidence you're working with? What about the other accounts? Let's widen the scope beyond a piece of boiler-plate to the broader picture.

It is likewise contradicted by the history of the very controversy with which we are now concerned. According to a popular notion the point, upon which beyond all others churchmen were determined to insist, was the geocentric system of astronomy. Nevertheless it was a churchman, Nicholas Copernicus, who first advanced the contrary doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the centre of our system, round which our planet revolves, rotating on its own axis. His great work, "De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium", was published at the earnest solicitation of two distinguished churchmen, Cardinal Schömberg and Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III in order, as Copernicus explained, that it might be thus protected from the attacks which it was sure to encounter on the part of the "mathematicians" (i.e. philosophers) for its apparent contradiction of the evidence of our senses, and even of common sense. He added that he made no account of objections which might be brought by ignorant wiseacres on Scriptural grounds. Indeed, for nearly three quarters of a century no such difficulties were raised on the Catholic side, although Luther and Melanchthon condemned the work of Copernicus in unmeasured terms. Neither Paul III, nor any of the nine popes who followed him, nor the Roman Congregations raised any alarm, and, as has been seen, Galileo himself in 1597, speaking of the risks he might run by an advocacy of Copernicanism, mentioned ridicule only and said nothing of persecution. Even when he had made his famous discoveries, no change occurred in this respect. On the contrary, coming to Rome in 1611, he was received in triumph; all the world, clerical and lay, flocked to see him, and, setting up his telescope in the Quirinal Garden belonging to Cardinal Bandim, he exhibited the sunspots and other objects to an admiring throng.

[godless dave]

Facts and the webs of theories that tie together those facts.

To be my knowledge they have to be justified.

For instance, I could learn by rote all sorts of interesting formulas and equations. They would true. I could even believe them. But I wouldn't be justified in my belief because I wouldn't really understand them.

Even if you didn't understand them, you would still have the knowledge. Understanding them would be additional knowledge.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe, is that the only evidence you're working with? What about the other accounts? Let's widen the scope beyond a piece of boiler-plate to the broader picture.

Yes, I consider the actual primary documents to be decisive in this matter. There is no historical controversy.

The Church has over the years tried to paint its actions as not being so severe.

Even if the story you're giving is true--that the Church only tried and sentenced Galileo for heresy because the Copernican model wasn't sufficiently supported by the enough scientific evidence--you have to admit that this is certainly an example of religion making claims about stuff inside the box.

Even if the Church was correct, and it turned out the Earth was the center of the world, fixed and unmoving while the Sun, the planets and the stars all spun around the Earth (presumably on crystal spheres, by the way, that make a celestial music)--even if the Copernican model turned out to be dead wrong, the Church's prosecution of Galileo on this matter is, nevertheless, without a doubt an example of religion making claims about stuff inside the box.

ETA: BTW, how do you suppose the passage you quoted in your post number 87 (without giving a source, I might add) serves to "widen the scope"? It's just a bit of the history. The fact that the Church didn't communicate any displeasure at Galileo's work up to about 1611 doesn't change the fact that the Church accused, tried and convicted him for advocating that the natural world doesn't work the way the Church doctrine says it does. The reason the Church tolerated Copernicus' writings was that it was presented as a theoretical/mathematical exercise and had a disclaimer that he was not claiming this is how the natural world actually works. That's what the Church objected to wrt Galileo. He was claiming that this is the truth of the natural world and he had empirical observational evidence to support that it is so. So the very reason the Church prosecuted Galileo was the fact that the issues were "inside the box".

[Stone Island]

Yes, I consider the actual primary documents to be decisive in this matter. There is no historical controversy.

The Church has over the years tried to paint its actions as not being so severe.

Even if the story you're giving is true--that the Church only tried and sentenced Galileo for heresy because the Copernican model wasn't sufficiently supported by the enough scientific evidence--you have to admit that this is certainly an example of religion making claims about stuff inside the box.

Even if the Church was correct, and it turned out the Earth was the center of the world, fixed and unmoving while the Sun, the planets and the stars all spun around the Earth (presumably on crystal spheres, by the way, that make a celestial music)--even if the Copernican model turned out to be dead wrong, the Church's prosecution of Galileo on this matter is, nevertheless, without a doubt an example of religion making claims about stuff inside the box.
They weren't making claims about stuff inside the box, they were operating in their political/moral role. That's outside the box, I trust.

[godless dave]

They weren't making claims about stuff inside the box, they were operating in their political/moral role.

They weren't making claims about what heavenly bodies orbited what? They weren't making claims about how humans should behave? Those are both inside the box.

[Stone Island]

They weren't making claims about how humans should behave? Those are both inside the box.
So, science can tell me whether atheists ought to be hung from a tree until dead?

No, moral claims are not scientific claims.

[JoeTheJuggler]

They weren't making claims about stuff inside the box, they were operating in their political/moral role. That's outside the box, I trust.
No, they were arguing about whether the Earth is fixed and motionless. They were arguing about whether Copernicus' model was an accurate depiction of the natural world. It's there in the primary documents I cited earlier-- plain as day.

The Church made the claim that Galileo's teachings were false. (Again look at the documents cited. They use the word "false".) Turns out they were dead wrong, but even if they weren't, it would still be an example of religion making claims about stuff inside the box.

They also cited the basis of their claims about the question of which model of the solar system (or "the world") is the more accurate model as the scriptures and teachings of the Church. They weren't, for example, intervening on behalf of one university against another. They were explicitly using religion to support a claim about which model of the natural world was more accurate.

The basis for claiming Galileo was doing something wrong was their contention that the Copernican model was false as a model of the natural world. (In other words, they claimed that the geocentric model was correct--a claim about the natural world.)

[godless dave]

No, science can't answer moral questions, but morality and human behavior are inside the box. The church claimed (and claims) that the creator of the universe and everything in it (outside the box) has an opinion about how humans (inside the box) behave (inside the box). The church went beyond what science does - rather than observe what happens inside the box, they thought their god (outside the box) gave them authority to tell people inside the box how to behave. That's a claim about the inside of the box.

That's the problem with a god who's outside the box. Anything that humans have to worry about is inside the box. Anything outside the box is indescribable, because we have no way of observing it.

[Stone Island]

No, science can't answer moral questions, but morality and human behavior are inside the box. The church claimed (and claims) that the creator of the universe and everything in it (outside the box) has an opinion about how humans (inside the box) behave (inside the box). The church went beyond what science does - rather than observe what happens inside the box, they thought their god (outside the box) gave them authority to tell people inside the box how to behave. That's a claim about the inside of the box.

That's the problem with a god who's outside the box. Anything that humans have to worry about is inside the box. Anything outside the box is indescribable, because we have no way of observing it.
Now you're getting carried away with an analogy.

Moral claims aren't scientific claims.

[godless dave]

But moral values are inside the box. They are in the realm of the natural world. If you insist that religion's magisterium is only what is outside of the natural world, then morality is not in religion's magisterium.

[Stone Island]

But moral values are inside the box. They are in the realm of the natural world. If you insist that religion's magisterium is only what is outside of the natural world, then morality is not in religion's magisterium.

Moral claims aren't scientific claims.

[paximperium]

Moral claims aren't scientific claims.
Why?
Values can be placed on morality and you can therefore test it. Since Morality is within the constraints of the natural world, it has an effect that can therefore be tested.

Not killing is good. This can be tested.
Not stealing is good. This can be tested.
Homosexuality is harmful. This can be tested.
Blaspheming is harmful. This can be tested.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Moral claims aren't scientific claims.

If you can define "moral claims" as covering the claim that the heliocentric model of the solar system is false, then every single claim about the natural world can be construed as a "moral claim".

I reject that notion.

Clearly, religion has not limited itself to claims "outside the box".

[Achán hiNidráne]

Clearly, religion has not limited itself to claims "outside the box".

Stuff and nonsense! It's not like any of the world's religions have claimed anything like... oh... that the Earth and all life on it was instantly created over the course of six, twenty-four-hours days by way of "the world" of an invisible dictator.

Oh, wait...

Well, it's not as if they made some claim that a woman was conned into eating a piece of fruit by a... get this... A TALKING SNAKE (HA! HA! HA!) and that for eating this piece of fruit she and her offspring would be cursed forever...

What's that? DAMN!

OK, how about this one, the earth is a disc supported on the back of three elephants which are in turn held up by a giant, cosmic turtle. There no way the religious would make that clai...

Crap! You've got to be kidding me!

Myth, you say? Fables that modern day believers don't take seriously anymore? Perhaps, but whether or not you, myself, or SI believe they are true is irrelevant. These are claims made by the religious about the exact nature of the universe (e.g. inside the box) and what goes on within it.

[Foster Zygote]

Joe, is that the only evidence you're working with? What about the other accounts? Let's widen the scope beyond a piece of boiler-plate to the broader picture.

It is likewise contradicted by the history of the very controversy with which we are now concerned. According to a popular notion the point, upon which beyond all others churchmen were determined to insist, was the geocentric system of astronomy. Nevertheless it was a churchman, Nicholas Copernicus, who first advanced the contrary doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the centre of our system, round which our planet revolves, rotating on its own axis. His great work, "De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium", was published at the earnest solicitation of two distinguished churchmen, Cardinal Schömberg and Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III in order, as Copernicus explained, that it might be thus protected from the attacks which it was sure to encounter on the part of the "mathematicians" (i.e. philosophers) for its apparent contradiction of the evidence of our senses, and even of common sense. He added that he made no account of objections which might be brought by ignorant wiseacres on Scriptural grounds. Indeed, for nearly three quarters of a century no such difficulties were raised on the Catholic side, although Luther and Melanchthon condemned the work of Copernicus in unmeasured terms. Neither Paul III, nor any of the nine popes who followed him, nor the Roman Congregations raised any alarm, and, as has been seen, Galileo himself in 1597, speaking of the risks he might run by an advocacy of Copernicanism, mentioned ridicule only and said nothing of persecution. Even when he had made his famous discoveries, no change occurred in this respect. On the contrary, coming to Rome in 1611, he was received in triumph; all the world, clerical and lay, flocked to see him, and, setting up his telescope in the Quirinal Garden belonging to Cardinal Bandim, he exhibited the sunspots and other objects to an admiring throng.

What other accounts? I read this the first time I read through the linked article. I find it ironic that you ask Joe "is this the only evidence you're working with?" when all you have provided is a single article from a biased source that is contradicted by historical documents.

[godless dave]

Why?
Values can be placed on morality and you can therefore test it. Since Morality is within the constraints of the natural world, it has an effect that can therefore be tested.

Not killing is good. This can be tested.
Not stealing is good. This can be tested.

I disagree with this, unless you define "good" ahead of time. "Good" is subjective.


Homosexuality is harmful. This can be tested.
Blaspheming is harmful. This can be tested.

These I agree with. These are objective claims that can be tested.

My argument wasn't that moral "claims" are scientific claims. My argument was that moral values are natural phenomena that occur in the minds of human beings and are therefore within the realm of science.

[JoeTheJuggler]

My argument wasn't that moral "claims" are scientific claims. My argument was that moral values are natural phenomena that occur in the minds of human beings and are therefore within the realm of science.

And I say for purposes of the assertion in the OP that religion limits itself to claims about "out of the box" stuff, we don't need to answer the question of whether or not moral claims are "inside the box".

The reason is, religion has made plenty of claims about stuff that is indisputably inside the box.

For example, religion has attempted to answer the question as to whether the geocentric or heliocentric model is a more accurate description of the natural world.

For a more recent example, religion has attempted to assert an answer as to what should be included in public school science classes.

Even if religion had gotten these answers right (but they didn't), these things would still count as religion clearly making claims about the natural world. (And not the disputed turf of moral claims.)

[Hokulele]

Why does this have to be a science/religion type dichotomy? Why can't other fields, such as philosophy, be seen as controlling the magisteria for morality? Harumph.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Stoney, I noticed you still haven't addressed the issue I've raised twice now about how you used a Catholic account of history to argue that religion never makes claims about stuff inside the box.

Care to take a stab at this?

Also, what about the highlighted bits of the original documents I cited. How do those fit in with the account you're trying to assert--that Galileo was not tried and convicted by the Church for suspicion of heresy based on his endorsement of the Copernican model as a description of the natural world? The documents undoubtedly say just that.

As I said previously, even if your explanation were correct (and it's not!!)--that the Church was rejecting the Copernican model because the evidence continued to support the geocentric model--even if that fairy tale were true, it would still be an example of religion making claims about the natural world. How can you possibly deny this?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why does this have to be a science/religion type dichotomy? Why can't other fields, such as philosophy, be seen as controlling the magisteria for morality? Harumph.

As godless dave correctly pointed out, for this discussion the issue isn't, "Whose turf is it?", but rather, "Is the turf inside the box (the natural world) or outside?" So yes--if as you say morality is in the realm of philosophy, doesn't that suggest that it's still inside the box?

At any rate, the point is moot because religion certainly doesn't limit itself to claims either about morality or stuff outside the box.

Again, if you spin the prosecution of Galileo, the Edwards vs. Aguillard case, and the Dover case as "moral" issues, then it's obvious that everything inside the box can be construed as a "moral" question in the same way.

[Stone Island]

As I said previously, even if your explanation were correct (and it's not!!)--that the Church was rejecting the Copernican model because the evidence continued to support the geocentric model--even if that fairy tale were true, it would still be an example of religion making claims about the natural world. How can you possibly deny this?
It's not a religion acting qua religion, but a church acting qua political institution.

Every case a religious person makes isn't a religious case.

Two very different things.

[GeeMack]

It's not a religion acting qua religion, but a church acting qua political institution.

Every case a religious person makes isn't a religious case.

Two very different things.


You're still wrong Stone Island. But even if you weren't wrong about that, you certainly agree with this, don't you?...

At any rate, the point is moot because religion certainly doesn't limit itself to claims either about morality or stuff outside the box.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's not a religion acting qua religion, but a church acting qua political institution.
No it's not. It claims the violation is a scriptural one.


Every case a religious person makes isn't a religious case.

What person are you talking about? I've shown official Church documents that made charges and passed sentence against Galileo in the name of Jesus and Mary! These weren't a matter of "a religious person" making a case.

By your standards, there is no such thing as a "religion qua religion" ever making a claim about anything--which is why you're just using the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

The Galileo case is certainly an example of religion making a claim about the natural world. The historical documents use those very words.

And, I've shown that even if your own reading of the history:
This is where you go wrong: the Church forced Galileo to recant because he didn't have the math to prove his statements.
were true, this still is an example of religion making a claim about the natural world.

You can deny it all you want, but you're simply wrong.

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, do you have any evidence that the Church made its case against Galileo based on mathematical evidence?

ETA: Or political considerations? If they were doing either of these, you'd have to conclude that they were liars.

From their own documents, they claim that the Church's position is based on holy scriptures. They're using holy scripture to make a case against someone's model of the natural world.

This is beyond any doubt an example of religion making an inside-the-box claim.

[Dr Adequate]

I'm sure that somewhere, sometime, some religious person said something that was, on their part, a mistake or misunderstanding. However, religion qua religion and science qua science have been where they are today since at least Aristotle. Does "religion qua religion" also wear a kilt qua kilt and play the bagpipes qua bagpipes?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now care to tackle Edwards v. Aguillard or Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education?

Even the courts agree with me that these are examples of religion intruding into the realm of science (i.e. the natural world).

[Stone Island]

were true, this still is an example of religion making a claim about the natural world.
It's a church acting in its political capacity.

Not every case made by a religious person is a religious case.
No true vegetarian eats meat.
No true religious claims are claims about scientific phenomenon.

[Dr Adequate]

No true religious claims are claims about scientific phenomenon. This may be so; but that still leaves us with all the false religious claims about scientific phenomena.

[Hokulele]

It's a church acting in its political capacity.


A church implementing political science?

Hmmm...

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's a church acting in its political capacity.
You've said that, even though, as I've shown that statement is contradicted by the actual documents.

Not every case made by a religious person is a religious case.
You said that too. To which I ask, what religious person are you talking about? I pointed to official Church statements that were made in the name of Jesus and his mother Mary.

No true vegetarian eats meat.
No true religious claims are claims about scientific phenomenon.
You said that before too. It shows that you're using the No True Scotsman fallacy. The vegetarian statement is even the very example of the exception on the page I linked to. Yet you still think it justifies your case when it does just the opposite.

I've given you example that contradict this. The official Catholic Church doctrine was that, as a religious matter based on holy scriptures, the geocentric model was a more accurate description of the natural world than the heliocentric model.

You can keep making false assertions, but they're still false. You should at least make some effort to argue your case.

Pretty much you're replying to the evidence I'm providing with a very childish, "Is not!"

[Stone Island]

This may be so; but that still leaves us with all the false religious claims about scientific phenomena.

Yes.

The Church Fathers, in the Galileo case, knew the difference.

[godless dave]

It's not a religion acting qua religion, but a church acting qua political institution.

Every case a religious person makes isn't a religious case.


But in the case of Galileo, the church accused him of heresy, a religious crime, and used their religious beliefs to argue that geocentrism was true. Moreover, how can a church claim the religious authority to act as a political institution without making a religious case?

[Foster Zygote]

Yes.

The Church Fathers, in the Galileo case, knew the difference.

Then wouldn't that make them liars?

[Stone Island]

Moreover, how can a church claim the religious authority to act as a political institution without making a religious case?

They didn't.

[godless dave]

Yes.

The Church Fathers, in the Galileo case, knew the difference.


Apparently not. They are on record as thinking the earth revolved around the sun.

[godless dave]

They didn't.

Then what did they claim as their basis for having authority over what Galileo published?

[arthwollipot]

I'm confused. The Pope was not using his religious authority when he accused Galileo of heresy?

What authority was he using then? What secular crime was Galileo accused of?

[Stone Island]

I'm confused. The Pope was not using his religious authority when he accused Galileo of heresy?

What authority was he using then? What secular crime was Galileo accused of?

From New Advent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm) (which none of you apparently bothered to read):

In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. Galileo and Foscarini rightly urged that the Bible is intended to teach men to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that, while there was as yet no sufficient proof of the Copernican system, no objection was made to its being taught as an hypothesis which explained all phenomena in a simpler manner than the Ptolemaic, and might for all practical purposes be adopted by astronomers. What was objected to was the assertion that Copernicanism was in fact true, "which appears to contradict Scripture". It is clear, moreover, that the authors of the judgment themselves did not consider it to be absolutely final and irreversible, for Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the Sacred College, writing to Foscarini, after urging that he and Galileo should be content to show that their system explains all celestial phenomena -- an unexceptional proposition, and one sufficient for all practical purposes -- but should not categorically assert what seemed to contradict the Bible, thus continued:

I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.

Then, go back to this:

It was not until four years later that trouble arose, the ecclesiastical authorities taking alarm at the persistence with which Galileo proclaimed the truth of the Copernican doctrine. That their opposition was grounded, as is constantly assumed, upon a fear lest men should be enlightened by the diffusion of scientific truth, it is obviously absurd to maintain. On the contrary, they were firmly convinced, with Bacon and others, that the new teaching was radically false and unscientific, while it is now truly admitted that Galileo himself had no sufficient proof of what he so vehemently advocated, and Professor Huxley after examining the case avowed his opinion that the opponents of Galileo "had rather the best of it". But what, more than all, raised alarm was anxiety for the credit of Holy Scripture, the letter of which was then universally believed to be the supreme authority in matters of science, as in all others. When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore heretical. It is evident that, since the days of Copernicus himself, the Reformation controversy had done much to attach suspicion to novel interpretations of the Bible, which was not lessened by the endeavours of Galileo and his ally Foscarini to find positive arguments for Copernicanism in the inspired volume. Foscarini, a Carmelite friar of noble lineage, who had twice ruled Calabria as provincial, and had considerable reputation as a preacher and theologian, threw himself with more zeal than discretion into the controversy, as when he sought to find an argument for Copernicanism in the seven-branched candlestick of the Old Law. Above all, he excited alarm by publishing works on the subject in the vernacular, and thus spreading the new doctrine, which was startling even for the learned, amongst the masses who were incapable of forming any sound judgment concerning it. There was at the time an active sceptical party in Italy, which aimed at the overthrow of all religion, and, as Sir David Brewster acknowledges (Martyrs of Science), there is no doubt that this party lent Galileo all its support.
For political reasons. Since most people mistakenly assumed that religious teaching had something to do with what was "in the box", Church authorities thought that to suddenly, and without merit by the way, overthrow that understanding would be detrimental to public order and the authority of the Church.

[Stone Island]

Apparently not. They are on record as thinking the earth revolved around the sun.
From Cardinal Bellarmine:
I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.

From his biography (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02411d.htm):
Bellarmine did not live to deal with the later and more serious stage of the Galileo case, but in 1615 he took part in its earlier stage. He had always shown great interest in the discoveries of that investigator, and was on terms of friendly correspondence with him. He took up too--as is witnessed by his letter to Galileo's friend Foscarini--exactly the right attitude towards scientific theories in seeming contradiction with Scripture. If, as was undoubtedly the case then with Galileo's heliocentric theory, a scientific theory is insufficiently proved, it should be advanced only as an hypothesis; but if, as is the case with this theory now, it is solidly demonstrated, care must be taken to interpret Scripture only in accordance with it.

[Foster Zygote]

From New Advent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm) (which none of you apparently bothered to read):

That's the problem with using the ignore function to avoid confronting your errors: You end up looking rather silly.

It does take me back, though. I'm reminded of ol' T'ai Chi making posts that would inspire a dozen or so responses, then posting "So no one has anything to say in response? I thought as much". Silly, silly, silly.

[JoeTheJuggler]

From New Advent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm) (which none of you apparently bothered to read)

Yes, I have read this and what John Paul II had to say and so on.

And I see you're still quoting a Catholic website's version of history* in order to argue that religion doesn't make claims about the natural world.

In fact, the primary documents show that this version is bunk--or at the very least it's been heavily spun.

I've quoted you the pertinent documents, which you still have not responded to. Galileo was sentenced in Jesus' name for suspicion of heresy for teaching something that was contrary to Church doctrine and was contrary to the holy scripture. The Church officially declared the Copernican model of the natural world "false".

If this is not religion making claims about the natural world, then perhaps you could give an example of what one would be like.

*Do you suppose history is "inside the box"?

[Herzblut]

I've quoted you the pertinent documents, which you still have not responded to. Galileo was sentenced in Jesus' name for suspicion of heresy for teaching something that was contrary to Church doctrine and was contrary to the holy scripture. The Church officially declared the Copernican model of the natural world "false".

It is.

[linusrichard]

Knowledge is a body of facts accumulated in the course of time.

"Justified true beliefs" is redundant. If beliefs are true, they don't have to be justified.

I disagree, but let me try to muster a better defense than Stone Island was able to offer. Is belief in God justified? Of course not. We can say, of course not, because (let's assume) it isn't true -- God (let's assume) doesn't exist. But if God did exist, and we still had the same information to work with, would belief in God be justified? I still say no. Belief without evidence (or something passing for evidence) is unjustified belief.

I say that whether a belief is justified depends not on its truth, but on the existence of supporting evidence.

To carry on this "box" metaphor, I would say that belief (and positive disbelief) in anything firmly "outside the box" is unjustified. That is, it is unjustified to believe that God exists, and it is unjustified to believe positively that no God exists, even though one of these is actually true.

Why does this have to be a science/religion type dichotomy? Why can't other fields, such as philosophy, be seen as controlling the magisteria for morality? Harumph.

Because we're all hung up on this dumb "box" metaphor. If we let philosophy in on the game (or I would propose "ethics," which I guess is a subset of philosophy), then we have to decide whether it's "inside the box" or "outside the box." Neither one really works, in my opinion. If we try to stuff it inside the box, it suffocates, but if we lock it outside the box, then most of us here (as skeptics) are going to have to ignore it.

Get rid of the binary "box" metaphor, and let philosophy compete with religion for the morality magisterium!

[Mister Agenda]

It is.

I assume you acknowledge that it is 'less false' than the Ptolemaic model, right?

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is.
Sigh. . .

And does this mean this is somehow NOT an example of religion making claims about the natural world?

By the way, the Church not only declared the Copernican model false, but it also declared the geocentric model a more accurate representation of the natural world, which is completely wrong. As I've said repeatedly now, whether the Church was right or wrong is completely beside the point being argued--it is certainly an example of religion making a claim about the natural world or stuff "inside the box".

[godless dave]

For political reasons. Since most people mistakenly assumed that religious teaching had something to do with what was "in the box", Church authorities thought that to suddenly, and without merit by the way, overthrow that understanding would be detrimental to public order and the authority of the Church.


Without merit? Galileo had evidence from what he had seen in his telescope. There was plenty of merit. This really doesn't help your case at all. The church, according to you, was asserting authority over what lay people believed about the natural world.

[Foster Zygote]

For political reasons.
The politics of religion.

Since most people mistakenly assumed that religious teaching had something to do with what was "in the box", Church authorities thought that to suddenly, and without merit by the way, overthrow that understanding would be detrimental to public order and the authority of the Church.
So they knew that they were wrong, but forced Galileo to recant because it would undermine their authority to be demonstrated to have been wrong. Doesn't that make them liars?

By the way, you are basing your entire case on this one highly biased source. I would have thought that someone so close to earning a Ph.D. would recognize the weakness of such evidence. Your claim that Galileo was correctly censured because he failed to show his math is laughable. The original source documents from the RCC demonstrate that he was forced to recant because his findings contradicted RC declarations regarding the nature of the universe. Galileo didn't need to show the detailed math, Copernicus had already done so. And Copernicus' model was not openly accepted by the RCC. It was tolerated as a tool for calculating planetary motions with greater ease than earlier systems, but it was officially regarded as not reflecting the true nature of the universe. The really sad thing is that many RCC clergy no doubt knew that Copernicus' model was the more likely candidate as an accurate description of nature, but they could not openly admit it because that would open the door to a host of questions about the justification of Church claims of representing God's absolute authority. So they chose to continue to maintain their claim that the Earth stood fixed at the center of the universe.

And this is still, not even remotely, not the only example of religion making claims about things that lie within the field of scientific inquiry.

[Undesired Walrus]

Stone Island:

"It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God."


The conception of God is, and always has been, a reaction to looking around at your existence and concluding that a God must have been behind it. God used to be the cause behind the black death, the hand behind thunder and lighting, and the creator -out of nothing- of every living thing. Increasingly, he has become a superfluous entity, and has been pushed out of the box with the false declaration that he always has operated from this external realm.

Yet today, the vast majority of educated theists use the 'fine tuning' argument, the proposition that God was the architect behind the universal constants being tuned perfectly for our existence. If this isn't God venturing 'into the box', I don't know what is. There exists a gap in scientific knowledge, and God has been called to fill it, in the same way God was the solution to the great problems Newton grappled with.

NOMA is only for theists who wish to ignore history, and the current religous consensus.

[Herzblut]

Sigh. . .

And does this mean this is somehow NOT an example of religion making claims about the natural world?

Sigh...

And what a brand-new example! When was that? Around 1630?

You are aware that science by that time was not existing independently, aren't you? It was the RCC and protestant churches which organized science by that time. Oh, just btw, you are aware that by that time the mother of all wars was devastating Europe, aren't you?

No, you aren't. You are clueless about the historic environment you talk about and simply extrapolate the present time hundreds of years back into the past with superluminal velocity and then draw your naive conclusions. Simply because you like them.

Very clever, how smart indeed.

[godless dave]

Sigh...

And what a brand-new example! When was that? Around 1630?

You are aware that science by that time was not existing independently, aren't you? It was the RCC and protestant churches which organized science by that time. Oh, just btw, you are aware that by that time the mother of all wars was devastating Europe, aren't you?


How is any of that relevant to the question at hand? Remember, Stone Island's argument is that religions don't make claims about the natural world.

For a more recent example, there is what Pope John Paul II told a gathering of physicists (quoted above); the belief in intercessory prayer; and of course the Young Earth Creationists.

[Herzblut]

How is any of that relevant to the question at hand?

It isn't, of course not. We can take our present understanding of science and religion and project them back into whatever time we like to draw our conclusions from our present standpoint. That's very legitimate. :p


Remember, Stone Island's argument is that religions don't make claims about the natural world.

Where have you read that?

[godless dave]

Where have you read that?

The opening post of this thread.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sigh...

And what a brand-new example! When was that? Around 1630?

You are aware that science by that time was not existing independently, aren't you? It was the RCC and protestant churches which organized science by that time. Oh, just btw, you are aware that by that time the mother of all wars was devastating Europe, aren't you?

No, you aren't. You are clueless about the historic environment you talk about and simply extrapolate the present time hundreds of years back into the past with superluminal velocity and then draw your naive conclusions. Simply because you like them.

Very clever, how smart indeed.
Hertzblut, take a minute to read the thread.

At the very least, read MY very first post on this thread.

I pointed out that this nice neat scheme of science "inside the box" and religion "outside the box"--even if it exists today (which it doesn't, as you'd know by several other examples I posted--if you'd been reading this thread)--ignores history in which everything that is "inside the box" was once explained by religion.

If you want modern examples, read some of my other posts.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You are aware that science by that time was not existing independently, aren't you?
Not only am I aware of it, that was the very point I was making.

ETA: My argument throughout has been that this NOMA-type of description of science is science and religion is religion and never the twain shall meet is an inaccurate description of the relationship between science and religion. This is certainly true historically, and very (easily) arguably true today.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Where have you read that?

He's been defending Burgess-Johnson's position in the quote in the OP of this thread all along.

[JoeTheJuggler]

For a more recent example of religion making "inside the box" claims, we have the decision in the Kitzmiller case (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html). There's an entire section titled, "An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism" which contains this sentence:

The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter "ID"), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

Yep--the religious nature of these claims about the natural world is obvious.

[Herzblut]

I pointed out that this nice neat scheme of science "inside the box" and religion "outside the box"--even if it exists today (which it doesn't, as you'd know by several other examples I posted--if you'd been reading this thread)--ignores history in which everything that is "inside the box" was once explained by religion.

I apologize, Joe. What you say is perfectly correct.

Just, having a quick look at Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, it recognizes and criticizes well known religious assaults upon science like creationism. But it propagates another view on science and religion, namely what Burgess-Jackson expressed in the OP. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of scientists support this standpoint. For me personally, it's very appealing, this is how it should be.

[westprog]

I apologize, Joe. What you say is perfectly correct.

Just, having a quick look at Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, it recognizes and criticizes well known religious assaults upon science like creationism. But it propagates another view on science and religion, namely what Burgess-Jackson expressed in the OP. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of scientists support this standpoint. For me personally, it's very appealing, this is how it should be.

This seperation of science and religious concerns is a good thing and to be applauded. It was not a good thing when religious authorities made pronouncements on scientific matters based on religious beliefs. It wasn't a good thing when communists and nazis made pronouncements on scientific matters based on political and philosophical beliefs. Nor is it a good thing when scientists make moral judgements based on what they think is scientific truth. NOMA boundaries benefit everyone.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I apologize, Joe. What you say is perfectly correct.
Why thank you!

The overly-dramatic sigh was because Stone Island kept saying the same sort of thing--in his case, I think, intentionally forgetting what it was we were debating.


Just, having a quick look at Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, it recognizes and criticizes well known religious assaults upon science like creationism. But it propagates another view on science and religion, namely what Burgess-Jackson expressed in the OP. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of scientists support this standpoint. For me personally, it's very appealing, this is how it should be.
First, there are two issues: how it should be and how it is.

Burgess-Johnson's statements in the OP were simply a false characterization of the actual relationship (past and present) between the natural world, religion and science. No one (especially scientists) can reasonably conclude otherwise. As a characterization of how things are or have been, it's just not accurate.

As far as how it should be, that would suit me fine. I'd say it's all right if religion limits itself to claims about stuff outside the box. Anyone looking at it from a scientific perspective would be aware that there's no evidence that anything outside the box exists (as Godless Dave pointed out). I doubt very much I'll live to see how it should be become how it actually is. Religion is and has long been profoundly entangled in its claims about the natural world.

Similarly, politically, I'm hugely in favor of church/state separation. I'm not out to abolish religion. (As one member of my local atheist group says, "I just want them to leave me alone!") I think that anyone favoring a political view based on religion should be made to come up with a more universal reason for that position before expecting it to receive any political recognition. I think maybe I'm drifting off topic here. . . . .

[godless dave]

Nor is it a good thing when scientists make moral judgements based on what they think is scientific truth.

I agree, but what does that have to do with religion? Science and morality may be non-overlapping magisteria, but what about religion?

[JoeTheJuggler]

NOMA boundaries benefit everyone.

Or they would if they existed.

[anduin]

Aurther Koestler's book, The Sleepwalkers, is good on this point as well.

I have the book with me, can you cite precisely where he makes this point?

[Herzblut]

Burgess-Johnson's statements in the OP were simply a false characterization of the actual relationship (past and present) between the natural world, religion and science. No one (especially scientists) can reasonably conclude otherwise. As a characterization of how things are or have been, it's just not accurate.

OK, that's where we disagree. I'm convinced Burgess-Johnson is consensus for the vast majority of experts in both areas.

Let me add that I distinguish, in broad terms, between epistemic and ethical sorts of claims and I understand that Burgess-Johnson talks epistemology, not ethics. It goes without saying that a constituent part of religion is a moral codex and a mechanism to implant it in a group of people. Science, on the other hand, is morally ignorant, it does not favor any moral codex whatsoever.


Similarly, politically, I'm hugely in favor of church/state separation.

I agree, generally, but there's more to it. The US, with an entirely laical constitution, faces a massively religious society with strong tendencies towards sectarianism and religious bigotry. Whereas UK - celebrating a freaky State Church! - has a highly secular society. European societies are more secular in general, compared to Americas, though favoring very different models of church/state relationships. The UK being the extreme example of no church/state separation at all, but Brits are always being difficult.

[JoeTheJuggler]

OK, that's where we disagree. I'm convinced Burgess-Johnson is consensus for the vast majority of experts in both areas.
But the statement is made in absolute terms. Not something like "most of the time". The term "boundary" was recently used. I think a boundary that gets crossed as much as this does is no boundary at all. (Regardless of how many people stay on their own side of the boundary.)

The people who testified as experts at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education trial wouldn't accept the characterization given by Burgess-Johnson as accurate.

There's also been a pretty strong backlash among scientists against Bush's anti-science positions. (And it's pretty plain that what was used to inform Bush's decisions on issues like stem-cells and condom use instead of science was religion.)

[Stone Island]

I have the book with me, can you cite precisely where he makes this point?

Koestler, Arthur. The Sleepwalkers, Penguin Books, 1989.

Beginning on page: 458.

In the first place, it must be repeated that the Qualifiers talked of heresy, the decree did not... Even then, it remained a judicial opinion, without endorsement by Papal authority, and therefore not binding on members of the Church. Accordingly, the immobility of the earth never became an article of faith, nor the immobility of the sun a heresy... These points have been stressed over and again by Catholic apologists, but on the man in the street such subtleties were lost... (463).

[JoeTheJuggler]

Accordingly, the immobility of the earth never became an article of faith, nor the immobility of the sun a heresy... These points have been stressed over and again by Catholic apologists, but on the man in the street such subtleties were lost..
That's probably because the assertions of the Catholic apologists are in direct contradiction to the sentence of Galileo:


Invoking, therefore, the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His most glorious Mother, ever Virgin Mary, but this our final sentence, which sitting in judgment, with the counsel and advice of the Reverend Masters of sacred theology and Doctors of both Laws, our assessors, we deliver in these writings, in the cause and causes at present before us between the Magnificent Carlo Sinceri, Doctor of both Laws, Proctor Fiscal of this Holy Office, of the one part, and your Galileo Galilei, the defendant, here present, examined, tried, and confessed as shown above, of the other part—
<snip>
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves

[Herzblut]

The people who testified as experts at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education trial wouldn't accept the characterization given by Burgess-Johnson as accurate.

You're discussing the fringe, not the center.

[Wally]

You're discussing the fringe, not the center.

It may be a fringe in your part of the world, but in mine, it's darn near the majority opinion.

[Herzblut]

That's probably because the assertions of the Catholic apologists are in direct contradiction to the sentence of Galileo:
So, in the end, Galileo was found "in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy". What does that mean, exactly?

Moving away from the realm of freaky "judgments" it is clear that Galileo's heliocentric views were grossly false. And, hence, inadequate was the self-righteous tone of his "Dialogue" in which he declared his weird position as being the only truth using laughable arguments about the tides on earth, and in which he at the same time polemically mocked Pope Urban VIII, who had been a great admirer of Galileo and who had actually even encouraged him to study his heliocentrism and to publish the results, as long as he, Galileo, would not declare it as the only truth.

Let me put this straight: Galileo was an arrogant ******* and a political idiot. He ****** it up completely. He managed the impossible, to make the RCC his enemy. I mean, that is the church which regarded and still regards him the most brilliant shining star it ever raised, ever. And the church is damn right.

Galileo, Kepler and theories of tides

Cardinal Bellarmine had written in 1615 that the Copernican system could not be defended without "a true physical demonstration that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun".[59] Galileo considered his theory of the tides to provide the required physical proof of the motion of the earth. This theory was so important to Galileo that he originally intended to entitle his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems the Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea.[60] For Galileo, the tides were caused by the sloshing back and forth of water in the seas as a point on the Earth's surface speeded up and slowed down because of the Earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the Sun. Galileo circulated his first account of the tides in 1616, addressed to Cardinal Orsini.[61]

If this theory were correct, there would be only one high tide per day. Galileo and his contemporaries were aware of this inadequacy because there are two daily high tides at Venice instead of one, about twelve hours apart. Galileo dismissed this anomaly as the result of several secondary causes, including the shape of the sea, its depth, and other factors.[62] Against the assertion that Galileo was deceptive in making these arguments, Albert Einstein expressed the opinion that Galileo developed his "fascinating arguments" :D and accepted them uncritically out of a desire for physical proof of the motion of the Earth.[63]

Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides.[64] Galileo also refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits of the planets,[65] considering the circle the "perfect" shape for planetary orbits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Galileo.2C_Kepler_and_theories_of_tides

What a ******* idiot!
Do not use incompletely masked obscenities in public forums.

[Herzblut]

It may be a fringe in your part of the world, but in mine, it's darn near the majority opinion.
So, the majority of South Carolinians are creationists? Just for my holiday planning, to identify the no-go areas (Syria, Iraq, South Carolina...)

[linusrichard]

So, the majority of South Carolinians are creationists?

I don't know if this is an honest question, or a sarcastic rhetorical one, but assuming it is honest, I think it is a safe bet that the majority of South Carolinians are creationists, yes.

[Stone Island]

So, in the end, Galileo was found "in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy". What does that mean, exactly?

Moving away from the realm of freaky "judgments" it is clear that Galileo's heliocentric views were grossly false. And, hence, inadequate was the self-righteous tone of his "Dialogue" in which he declared his weird position as being the only truth using laughable arguments about the tides on earth, and in which he at the same time polemically mocked Pope Urban VIII, who had been a great admirer of Galileo and who had actually even encouraged him to study his heliocentrism and to publish the results, as long as he, Galileo, would not declare it as the only truth.

Let me put this straight: Galileo was an arrogant ******* and a political idiot. He ****** it up completely. He managed the impossible, to make the RCC his enemy. I mean, that is the church which regarded and still regards him the most brilliant shining star it ever raised, ever. And the church is damn right.

Galileo, Kepler and theories of tides

Cardinal Bellarmine had written in 1615 that the Copernican system could not be defended without "a true physical demonstration that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun".[59] Galileo considered his theory of the tides to provide the required physical proof of the motion of the earth. This theory was so important to Galileo that he originally intended to entitle his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems the Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea.[60] For Galileo, the tides were caused by the sloshing back and forth of water in the seas as a point on the Earth's surface speeded up and slowed down because of the Earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the Sun. Galileo circulated his first account of the tides in 1616, addressed to Cardinal Orsini.[61]

If this theory were correct, there would be only one high tide per day. Galileo and his contemporaries were aware of this inadequacy because there are two daily high tides at Venice instead of one, about twelve hours apart. Galileo dismissed this anomaly as the result of several secondary causes, including the shape of the sea, its depth, and other factors.[62] Against the assertion that Galileo was deceptive in making these arguments, Albert Einstein expressed the opinion that Galileo developed his "fascinating arguments" :D and accepted them uncritically out of a desire for physical proof of the motion of the Earth.[63]

Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides.[64] Galileo also refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits of the planets,[65] considering the circle the "perfect" shape for planetary orbits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Galileo.2C_Kepler_and_theories_of_tides

What a ******* idiot!

Bravo.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're discussing the fringe, not the center.
I'll bet I can point to a claim about the natural world made by every extant Western religion. (Probably true of other religions as well, but I'm a lot less familiar with those.) I don't think "deism" is an actual religion, but even there is at least the claim that the natural world is the product of the supernatural. For actual religion, there are much more overt claims about the natural world.

Again, Burgess-Johnson spoke in absolutes. He didn't say science makes claims about stuff inside the box and religion usually makes claims about stuff outside the box.

As I pointed out earlier, you also have to ignore the fact that at one time or another everything that was inside the box was explained by religion.

Science is a relatively recent thing in our history, and it's gradually taking over the "magisterium" of religion.

From my point of view, outside the box either doesn't exist or may as well not exist. So rather than this story of science making claims about stuff inside the box and religion docilely staying outside the box, I think a more accurate description is this: in the natural world, religion used to explain everything. Science has shown those religious claims about the natural world to be wrong. Now we invent a new realm for religion to retreat to: outside the natural world.

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, in the end, Galileo was found "in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy". What does that mean, exactly?
According to the Church's own documents (that I've cited above) it means Galileo taught that the Copernican model was a more accurate model of the natural world than the geocentric model. (The Church was OK with merely mathematical supposition by Copernicus with the careful disclaimer that this is not about the natural world.) The Church found that Galileo's teachings contradicted the holy scripture.

Why the Church found him "vehemently suspected of heresy" rather than simply "guilty of heresy" I have no idea. Maybe they had an inkling that they were in the wrong. Or maybe they knew that Galileo's motives were not religiously-inspired (that is he wasn't trying to denounce Church doctrine as much as he was trying to discover the truth about the natural world).


Moving away from the realm of freaky "judgments" it is clear that Galileo's heliocentric views were grossly false.

Nevertheless, it moves.

Again, the Church wasn't saying it was false the same way you are. The Copernican model was vastly superior to the geocentric model as an explanation of the natural world. The Church's position was based on defense of the "holy scripture".

At any rate, AGAIN, this is all beside the point. Even if the Church had made a sound scientific argument, you have to admit would have been an example of religion making claims about the natural world.

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, the majority of South Carolinians are creationists? Just for my holiday planning, to identify the no-go areas (Syria, Iraq, South Carolina...)

Oh it's nearly that bad in the U.S. as a whole.

The most recent Pew poll (http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties) of people in the U.S. on this question:

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted July 7-17 among 2,000 adults, also finds deep religious and political differences over questions relating to evolution and the origins of life. Overall, about half the public (48%) says that humans and other living things have evolved over time, while 42% say that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Fully 70% of white evangelical Protestants say that life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time; fewer than half as many white mainline Protestants (32%) and white Catholics (31%) agree.

Despite these fundamental differences, most Americans (64%) say they are open to the idea of teaching creationism along with evolution in the public schools, and a substantial minority (38%) favors replacing evolution with creationism in public school curricula.

Yeah. . .it's that frightening here.

From my own experience living in the Bible Belt, there's a stark difference between urban and rural areas. Around here (the City of St. Louis), there's more secularism and rational thought (than the overall numbers), but in rural communities, nearly 100% of the people believe in creationism.


I hope you appreciate how good you've got it in your country! :)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ooops! Too late to edit. I should have said:

The most recent In a 2005 Pew poll (http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties) of people in the U.S. on this question:

[joobz]

The funny part of NOMA, is that they are static boundries.
Science, discovers more about the world, life and universe. Each time it does, the religious magesteria shrinks a bit. I can understand why this is threatening, as it functionally forces religion to remain nebulous and avoid making any concrete claimis of reality.

[bignickel]

Moving away from the realm of freaky "judgments" it is clear that Galileo's heliocentric views were grossly false.

"when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." - Isaac Asimov

[JoeTheJuggler]

The funny part of NOMA, is that they are static boundries.
Science, discovers more about the world, life and universe. Each time it does, the religious magesteria shrinks a bit. I can understand why this is threatening, as it functionally forces religion to remain nebulous and avoid making any concrete claimis of reality.
Yes. That's what I've been trying to get at, but you said it more clearly, I think. Characterizing the ever-changing "boundary" between the two magisteria as Burgess-Johnson does (inside or outside the box) is not an accurate description of what has happened and continues to happen.

"when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." - Isaac Asimov
Also well said.

Worse than that, the reason the Church rejected the Copernican model was that it conflicted with holy scripture.

As I've said, though, even if it were based on sound science, you'd still have to say it's an example of religion making a claim about the natural world which was my original point when I brought up the Church's prosecution of Galileo in this thread.

[Herzblut]

"when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." - Isaac Asimov
Fine, but a heliocentric worldview is as false as a geocentric one. Actually, there is no center of the Universe at all.

[joobz]

Fine, but a heliocentric worldview is as false as a geocentric one. Actually, there is no center of the Universe at all.
But the sun is the center of the solar system. The earth can't even claim that.

[Herzblut]

But the sun is the center of the solar system. The earth can't even claim that.
Yeah, the center of mass of our solar system will be somewhere within the sun, I suppose. But that doesn't make it the center of the world.

[joobz]

Yeah, the center of mass of our solar system will be somewhere within the sun, I suppose. But that doesn't make it the center of the world.
That's really a nonresponse.

The Center of the Universe means where all object revolve around. That's the sun for our solar system. And that fact fits the observed sky behavior a lot better than the earth being the center.

So, again, I think it's clear that moving to a heliocentric view is at least accurate within the bounds of the solarsystem. earth can only make that claim with the moon. When you expand your scope, you soon realize that the earth isn't the center of the universe as it revolves around a different center. Certainly you expand the scope further, and you realize our solar system revolves around the center of the galaxy.


So, yes. They are both factually wrong, but the order of magnitude in which the wrongness exists is completely different.

Heliocentric trumps geocentric in accuracy.

[Herzblut]

The Center of the Universe means where all object revolve around. That's the sun for our solar system.

Two masses revolve around their joint center of mass, right?


And that fact fits the observed sky behavior a lot better than the earth being the center.

The observations available around 1600 didn't provide any evidence whatsoever that the earth moved at all.


So, again, I think it's clear that moving to a heliocentric view is at least accurate within the bounds of the solarsystem. earth can only make that claim with the moon. When you expand your scope, you soon realize that the earth isn't the center of the universe as it revolves around a different center.

No, no, you don't. You're extrapolating present common knowledge 400 years back in time. Why do you think the geocentrism of the old Greeks (Aristotle, Ptolemy) had already been in use for two millenia by 1600? Why did Galileo come up with his ridiculous idea of the earth's tides being caused by the planet's rotation? (Although everybody in Italy could see with his plain eyes the undeniable fact of two tides per day! Two!) Please think about it, without a certain level of physical understanding the mere idea of an earth moving at terrific speed and simultaneously rotating around itself at an incredible rate sounds absolutely unbelievable. How the hell can it be we don't experience orcanic winds all the time, and why don't we all just fly off of the earth's surface, why isn't there total chaos on earth caused by its own horrible motion? You stand on the ground, and you stand still, don't you?

Heliocentric trumps geocentric in accuracy.
There is no physical reason whatsoever to prefer any frame of reference in an Einsteinian Universe over any other. There are just practical arguments, like ease of orbital computation.

[joobz]

There is no physical reason whatsoever to prefer any frame of reference in an Einsteinian Universe over any other. There are just practical arguments, like ease of orbital computation.
that's completely tangential.

earth orbiting the sun makes the notion of a geocentric universe less accurate than a heliocentric universe.

the fact that neither of these are the center of the universe or that there is no "center" doesn't change the point.

[Foster Zygote]

that's completely tangential.

earth orbiting the sun makes the notion of a geocentric universe less accurate than a heliocentric universe.

the fact that neither of these are the center of the universe or that there is no "center" doesn't change the point.

And the sun was at the center of the universe as it was known to early 17th Century science. The fact remains that the model proclaimed as true by the RCC placed the Earth at the center of the orbits of all the planets. Galileo's observations of the phases of Venus alone were enough to refute that particular cosmological model and lent considerable support to the model devised by Copernicus.

[Herzblut]

that's completely tangential.

No, it's a fundamental principle of the Theory of Relativity.


earth orbiting the sun makes the notion of a geocentric universe less accurate than a heliocentric universe.

Earth and sun are orbiting around each other. Their relative motion can be described in any frame of reference, for instance in the center-of-earth system, center-of-sun system, center-of-mass (around which both are revolving) system or whatever other system. All those reference frames are completely equivalent, from a physical standpoint. There is no global "rest-frame" in this Universe, no distinguished "aether" relative to which everything else moves.

The choice of a particular reference frame is a mere matter of commodity, without any physical relevance.

[Foster Zygote]

Earth and sun are orbiting around each other. Their relative motion can be described in any frame of reference, for instance in the center-of-earth system, center-of-sun system, center-of-mass (around which both are revolving) system or whatever other system. All those reference frames are completely equivalent, from a physical standpoint. There is no global "rest-frame" in this Universe, no distinguished "aether" relative to which everything else moves.

Isn't this getting just a bit pedantic?

[Herzblut]

And the sun was at the center of the universe as it was known to early 17th Century science.

The earth as well.


The fact remains that the model proclaimed as true by the RCC placed the Earth at the center of the orbits of all the planets.

So what?


Galileo's observations of the phases of Venus alone were enough to refute that particular cosmological model and lent considerable support to the model devised by Copernicus.
Galileo presented his fatally wrong speculations of the earth's tides as prove.

[joobz]

No, it's a fundamental principle of the Theory of Relativity.

Earth and sun are orbiting around each other. Their relative motion can be described in any frame of reference, for instance in the center-of-earth system, center-of-sun system, center-of-mass (around which both are revolving) system or whatever other system. All those reference frames are completely equivalent, from a physical standpoint. There is no global "rest-frame" in this Universe, no distinguished "aether" relative to which everything else moves.

The choice of a particular reference frame is a mere matter of commodity, without any physical relevance.
There is mere about it. when we design satellites, we don't try and figure out the proper orbit in which the earth and solar system orbit arround the satellite.

Sorry, but the evidence fits heliocentric better than geocentric. That's all. That's the nature of models. and why not all models are created equal.

[AWPrime]

The earth as well.Actually no, what he meant was that they would only make 'detailed' observations of our solar system in the 17th century. This made the solar system the known universe.
The geocentric model can't hope to match the available data. The heliocentric model fits far better.

So what?You don't even care do you?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yeah, the center of mass of our solar system will be somewhere within the sun, I suppose. But that doesn't make it the center of the world.

In the understanding of the early 17th century definition of "the world" it does.

I don't see how you can say the heliocentric and geocentric models were equally inaccurate. They're not.

Two masses revolve around their joint center of mass, right?

And that would be relevant if the geocentric model only concerned the Earth and the Sun, but it didn't. The geocentric model claimed that the Earth was the center of the orbits of the Sun and the planets (and even the stars).

Earth and sun are orbiting around each other. Their relative motion can be described in any frame of reference, for instance in the center-of-earth system, center-of-sun system, center-of-mass (around which both are revolving) system or whatever other system. All those reference frames are completely equivalent, from a physical standpoint.

Again, this would be true if we were only speaking of the Sun and the Earth and ignoring the planets.

At any rate, the larger point still stands, that even if the Church were right, it is still an example of religion making claims about the natural world.

This is one of those inside-the-box questions and the Church was answering it based on whether or not the idea was consistent with holy scripture. Even if it was basing its decision on science (contrary to the words in the documents cited), it would still certainly be an example of religion making claims about the natural world.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Galileo presented his fatally wrong speculations of the earth's tides as prove.
What about his observation of the Galilean moons of Jupiter?

Frankly, I don't know what his entire case was, but for the purposes of the discussion of this thread, it doesn't really matter.

Even if Galileo had turned out to be wrong, the prosecution of Galileo by the Church was still an example of religion making inside-the-box claims.

And the same is true with the two relatively recent court cases I've mentioned. "Fringe" or not, they're still examples of religion making claims about the natural world. I didn't see anything in Burgess-Johnson's description that said this is the way it is except for "fringe" religion.

Another good example is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They make a number of claims about the natural world (the origin of North American Indians, for example).

Even most conventional Christian religions have taught that the story of Herod's slaughter of the innocents was historically true. We now know it almost certainly was not. (Whether it was true or false, it is still an inside-the-box claim.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually no, what he meant was that they would only make 'detailed' observations of our solar system in the 17th century. This made the solar system the known universe.
The geocentric model can't hope to match the available data. The heliocentric model fits far better.

Both the Copernican and the geocentric models also accounted for the stars.

In the geocentric model, they also revolved around the Earth (usually thought to be embedded in a sphere beyond the planets). In the Copernican model, they were thought to be fixed with regard to the fixed position of the Sun. We now know that that's not true either, but it's a helluva lot closer to the truth than the thought that the universe revolved around the Earth.

[Hokulele]

To paraphrase a recent post on economics, "No model is perfectly accurate, some models are useful."

[Herzblut]

The geocentric model can't hope to match the available data. The heliocentric model fits far better.

Each model fits, you "just" have to apply the correct equations of motion.

[Herzblut]

In the Copernican model, they were thought to be fixed with regard to the fixed position of the Sun. We now know that that's not true either, but it's a helluva lot closer to the truth than the thought that the universe revolved around the Earth.
Not at all.

[Herzblut]

To paraphrase a recent post on economics, "No model is perfectly accurate, some models are useful."
Yeah, I think the idea of usefulness is a very good one! Some models are more useful than others to deal with a certain kind of problem.

[AWPrime]

Each model fits, you "just" have to apply the correct equations of motion.
Well then, try it then. I would love to see you try to calculate even the rough orbits of Mars, Jupiter and Venus using a geocentric model.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well then, try it then. I would love to see you try to calculate even the rough orbits of Mars, Jupiter and Venus using a geocentric model.

Keeping the Earth and the Sun in the model, of course!

You don't think the Church was really anticipating relativity, do you, Hertzblut? I think they were just wrong because they were making sure their models lined up with the holy scriptures. (That's what they said, anyway. I've already cited their own documents from the prosecution of Galileo.)


And AGAIN back to the main point, any way you look at this, it's an example of the religion making claims about the natural world.

Stone Island, why do you keep starting new threads and quit defending your position on these others?

[Herzblut]

Well then, try it then. I would love to see you try to calculate even the rough orbits of Mars, Jupiter and Venus using a geocentric model.
A nice simulation can be watched here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvX78dpQ7GM

[JoeTheJuggler]

A nice simulation can be watched here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvX78dpQ7GM

And you think this is more accurate than the Copernican model?

I can't see the symbols, but I assume the planets doing the little loop-de-loop thing are the outer planets (Mars, Saturn & Jupiter), and that was invoked to explain retrograde motion. It doesn't fit with the way gravity works, though, does it?

Even considering the evidence available at the time, at the very least these geocentric models with their epicycles and what not weren't nearly as parsimonious as the heliocentric model.

[Herzblut]

You don't think the Church was really anticipating relativity, do you, Hertzblut? I think they were just wrong because they were making sure their models lined up with the holy scriptures.

The church changed its attitude a few decades later, Isaac Newton's ingenious foundation of physics was pretty much irrefutable. There was no way around adapting the understanding of the scriptures, and the church did so.


And AGAIN back to the main point, any way you look at this, it's an example of the religion making claims about the natural world.

The example is 400 years old and pretty irrelevant for the discussion of today's relation between religion and science, ref. Burgess-Jackson in the OP.

[Herzblut]

And you think this is more accurate than the Copernican model?

I said it was physically equivalent.


I can't see the symbols, but I assume the planets doing the little loop-de-loop thing are the outer planets (Mars, Saturn & Jupiter), and that was invoked to explain retrograde motion. It doesn't fit with the way gravity works, though, does it?

You integrate the equations of motion (numerically) using Newton's Law of Gravitation in a geostatic reference frame and that's the result. Period. Since the whole notion of gravity was pretty much unclear prior to Newton, the old guys were of course seriously struggling with those capricious loops. The epicycles were an observational matter of fact for almost two millennia, but the "scientific" explanations were pretty weird adhoc speculations. But, on the other hand, Kepler's laws were equally adhoc, without any physical background, until came Newton.


Even considering the evidence available at the time, at the very least these geocentric models with their epicycles and what not weren't nearly as parsimonious as the heliocentric model.
If you mean that the geocentric model was very complex, that's apparently true. Applying Kepler's laws in a heliocentric picture provides you with an enormous computational simplification.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The church changed its attitude a few decades later, Isaac Newton's ingenious foundation of physics was pretty much irrefutable. There was no way around adapting the understanding of the scriptures, and the church did so.
Which is pretty much what I've been arguing all along. The Church (a religion) was making claims about the natural world until it became obvious that this subject was in the realm of science.


The example is 400 years old and pretty irrelevant for the discussion of today's relation between religion and science, ref. Burgess-Jackson in the OP.
I disagree.

First, B-J didn't say this is the way it's been for the last 50 years. He just said this is how it is.

Second, I've already given plenty of examples of religion making claims about the natural world even now. All I needed to do to disprove that this is the case now is to provide one example, but I'm pretty certain that every major Western religion makes such claims (even today).

And finally, even if the state of affairs today LOOKS like a nice happy co-existence where religion sticks to making "outside the box claims" there is the problem that 1) there may be nothing outside the box and/or 2) stuff that we think is outside the box will turn out to be part of the natural world.

That last point is why it's valid to cite historical examples where religion and the supernatural once provided the explanation for everything that is now recognized as natural world stuff.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I said it was physically equivalent.
No, you said:
Fine, but a heliocentric worldview is as false as a geocentric one.

It's really not "as false". One is a substantially less accurate model of the world than the other.

[AWPrime]

A nice simulation can be watched here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvX78dpQ7GM
Although I don't blame you for being unable to actually calculate a working model. It just shows how unstable and unworkable it is. It like watching someone put 1 and 1 together and coming up with 3 because they believe it to be so.

[Herzblut]

It's really not "as false". One is a substantially less accurate model of the world than the other.
Incorrect. Each reference frame is equally valid from a physical standpoint. The orbits are the same, just the point of view changes.

[Herzblut]

First, B-J didn't say this is the way it's been for the last 50 years. He just said this is how it is.

It goes without saying that B-J do not refer to an era prior to the Age of Enlightenment.

[Herzblut]

Although I don't blame you for being unable to actually calculate a working model. It just shows how unstable and unworkable it is. It like watching someone put 1 and 1 together and coming up with 3 because they believe it to be so.
If you still think you change physics by changing your point of view, I can't help you anymore.

[AWPrime]

If you still think you change physics by changing your point of view, I can't help you anymore.Have you read any of your own posts? It is you who attempts to change physics.

I wanted to give you some awareness (and me some laughs) by letting you try and calculate a workable geocentric model. I hoped that you gave it at least a try, but you simply gave a video....

The geocentric model only lasted so long as it did because of egocentricity and dogma. These two things made people try to make a workable model of it for centuries, but they failed. That is what you get when one tries to fit reality to belief. Even that simplistic animation showed how unstable a geocentric model is.

[Herzblut]

Have you read any of your own posts? It is you who attempts to change physics.

How do you know you're qualified enough to make that judgment?

Certainly by proving me wrong. So, which of my physical statements are wrong, in how far, quoted where?

[JoeTheJuggler]

It goes without saying that B-J do not refer to an era prior to the Age of Enlightenment.

Why? The statement "religion only makes claims about stuff outside the box" can be refuted by the history of religion making claims inside the box.

At any rate, I made several other arguments as to why B-J's characterization of science and religion wrt to the natural world is wrong.

The Catholic Church still believes that calling on the intervention of St. Blaize can protect you from "diseases of the throat and all other diseases". This is obviously a claim about the natural world.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Incorrect. Each reference frame is equally valid from a physical standpoint. The orbits are the same, just the point of view changes.
You're saying the Ptolemaic Model is accurate from some reference frame?

The animation you posted when asked to provide such a model was from the reference frame of a point stationary with regard to the Earth. It is horribly inaccurate. We could put a space probe with a camera in that spot and spin it so that it is motionless wrt to the Earth. Do you think the animation you posted is what the camera would show?

How can you claim it's equally valid?

[Herzblut]

You're saying the Ptolemaic Model is accurate from some reference frame?

The animation you posted when asked to provide such a model was from the reference frame of a point stationary with regard to the Earth. It is horribly inaccurate.
If you still believe the accuracy of solutions of equations change when changing the coordinates in which the equations are expressed, I cannot help you anymore. You should just have listened better at school.

[AWPrime]

How do you know you're qualified enough to make that judgment?Because just about anyone here is. Lets take a look at some of your statements:

If you mean that the geocentric model was very complexNo its just unstable and worthless.

Each reference frame is equally valid from a physical standpoint. The orbits are the same, just the point of view changes.Wrong. The geocentric model superimposes basis observations on a belief, the result was an unstable model that just didn't work from a larger point of view and offered no greater understanding of the universe (no matter how many millennium people tried to get it to work).


If you still believe the accuracy of solutions of equations change when changing the coordinates in which the equations are expressed, I cannot help you anymore. You should just have listened better at school. Have you looked at a mirror lately?
There is no workable model for the geocentric model, it doesn't do more then taint the observation data. It is that data and the patterns in it that is somewhat accurate, not the model itself. Therefore it won't be more accurate then data gained from observation, and in reality its even less accurate then that.



While the heliocentric model shows long term stability, cohesiveness and took us beyond the basic observational data.


So for your statements to have any degree of truth we would need to live in alternate universe with different laws of physics and logic.

[Dr Adequate]

If you still believe the accuracy of solutions of equations change when changing the coordinates in which the equations are expressed, I cannot help you anymore. You should just have listened better at school. Taking the Earth to be stationary does not merely change the reference frame, it introduces a false datum.

If you try to calculate the motion of the bodies in the Solar system according to the laws of motion and gravity, you will find that the Earth undergoes acceleration and changes its velocity and position.

The fact that you can describe these motions using a coordinate system taking the Earth to be the origin does not change the fact that you would need to alter all the equations in an ad hoc manner in order to produce a geocentric physics in which the Earth undergoes no acceleration.

[Jeff Corey]

This one is pretty cool, too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGjlT3XHb9A&NR=1
so is this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVuU2YCwHjw&NR=1

[JoeTheJuggler]

If you still believe the accuracy of solutions of equations change when changing the coordinates in which the equations are expressed, I cannot help you anymore. You should just have listened better at school.

Now wait a second. When we point out that the geocentric model is known to be wrong, you complain that we're introducing modern knowledge (stuff the Church didn't know about in the early 17th Century).

But you want to claim that they were using relativity as an argument? That's not kosher.

It's also wholly revisionist to say that the Church was only silencing Galileo because he didn't make a strong enough scientific case. The charge was "suspicion of heresy" and the claim was that Galileo's writings contradicted the holy scripture.

It's clear that the Church was wrong.

It's also clear--and to the point--that it is yet another example of religion making claims about the natural world, and B-J's description of religion is inaccurate.

[JoeTheJuggler]

From the Wiki article on the Galilean moons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_moons#Discovery) of Jupiter:

On January 7, 1610, Galileo wrote a letter containing the first mention of Jupiter’s moons. At the time, he saw only three of them, and he believed them to be fixed stars near Jupiter. He continued to observe these celestial orbs from January 8 to March 2, 1610. In these observations, he discovered a fourth body, and also observed that the four were not fixed stars, but rather were orbiting Jupiter.[1]
Galileo’s discovery proved the importance of the telescope as a tool for astronomers by showing that there were objects in space to be discovered that until then had remained unseen by the naked eye. More importantly, the incontrovertible discovery of celestial bodies orbiting something other than the Earth dealt a serious blow to the then-accepted Ptolemaic world system, which held that the Earth was at the center of the universe and all other celestial bodies revolved around it. That Jupiter has four moons while Earth has only one further undercut the near-universal belief that the Earth was the center of the universe both in position and in importance.

[Herzblut]

Now wait a second. When we point out that the geocentric model is known to be wrong, you complain that we're introducing modern knowledge (stuff the Church didn't know about in the early 17th Century).

But you want to claim that they were using relativity as an argument? That's not kosher.

It depends what you mean by model. I distinguish between a geocentric world view and a geocentric frame of reference. The latter is supposed to be merely one particular framework, physics is the same in any framework.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It depends what you mean by model. I distinguish between a geocentric world view and a geocentric frame of reference. The latter is merely a particular framework, physically equivalent to any other.
But we're talking about what Galileo was prosecuted by the Church for. They weren't talking about frames of reference.

[Herzblut]

But we're talking about what Galileo was prosecuted by the Church for. They weren't talking about frames of reference.
That's correct. But Galileo was neither. Taken as a world view, rather than a particular framework, heliocentrism is obviously as wrong as the sun is not the center of the world.

Taking heliocentrism as a particular framework, for ease of calculation, was the obvious bridge the church was building for Galileo. But he refused to cross it. From a political standpoint that was really stupid, see my above post, but scientifically I don't blame him. He felt the right thing, but he couldn't but the puzzle together.

One has to admit that it was actually Johannes Kepler who got it right, not Galileo. I assume the church was pretty pissed about the fact that it was this protestant bloke from Germany who found the correct solution of this riddle of the world, not their own superstar.

[Herzblut]

From the Wiki article on the Galilean moons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_moons#Discovery) of Jupiter:
To correct a potential misunderstanding.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to belittle Galileo. He is a true giant of physics, his name and the one of Newton and Einstein are to be mentioned in one breath.

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's correct. But Galileo was neither.
Was neither what? I don't understand what you're trying to say. Must be a language thing. I pointed out that the people of the 17th Century were not talking about frames of reference. The two models were the geocentric model (supported by the Church because it agreed with holy scripture), and the Copernican model which is, in fact, a far more accurate model of the solar system.

Taken as a world view, rather than a particular framework, heliocentrism is obviously as wrong as the sun is not the center of the world.
We've gone over this already. The heliocentric model is much more accurate than the geocentric model. First-graders are taught this.


Taking heliocentrism as a particular framework, for ease of calculation, was the obvious bridge the church was building for Galileo.
What are you talking about? The Church banned Galileo from writing about the Copernican model. He was tried and convicted of "suspicion of heresy" for suggesting that this model was more accurate than the geocentric model. Originally sentenced to life in prison, his sentence was changed to "house arrest" for life and he was forbidden from writing about the subject. What "bridge" was the Church building for Galileo?

What a completely strange revision of history to suggest that the Church was somehow the more enlightened party in this conflict.

And again, even if the Church were scientifically correct (and they weren't--their position was based on holy scripture), it is certainly proof that B-J's assertion that religion only makes claims "outside the box" is wrong.

[Herzblut]

What are you talking about? The Church banned Galileo from writing about the Copernican model. He was tried and convicted of "suspicion of heresy" for suggesting that this model was more accurate than the geocentric model. Originally sentenced to life in prison, his sentence was changed to "house arrest" for life and he was forbidden from writing about the subject. What "bridge" was the Church building for Galileo?

I am, still, talking about this matter of fact:

Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool.

This fact made "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" appear as an advocacy book; an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. :covereyes Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book. However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, :boggled: and was called to Rome to defend his writings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Church_controversy

You honestly want to tell me Galileo did a great job? He could not do any better, you say?

Well, I still say, he ****** it up! Completely!

[Herzblut]

Why the Church found him "vehemently suspected of heresy" rather than simply "guilty of heresy" I have no idea.

I found this on the above cited Galileo Wiki page:

"Vehemently suspect of heresy" was a technical term of canon law and did not necessarily imply that the Inquisition considered the opinions giving rise to the verdict to be heretical. The same verdict would have been possible even if the opinions had been subject only to the less serious censure of "erroneous in faith".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#cite_note-87

Hence, Galileo was not precisely denounced as heretic.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I am, still, talking about this matter of fact:
You said Galileo was neither. Neither what? You said this in response to me pointing out that frames of reference were not part of the dialogue in the 17th Century.


You honestly want to tell me Galileo did a great job? He could not do any better, you say?


No. I never said any such thing. You're moving the goalposts.

I don't have to prove that Galileo couldn't have done a better job to support my position.

I also don't have to show that it was possible for Galileo to keep his head down and not make waves in a Church-dominated society.

(In fact, the dominance of the Church over the natural sciences really IS the reason I brought up the prosecution of Galileo in the first place.)

I've said repeatedly that the Copernican model was far more accurate than the geocentric model. (You claimed that they were equally false, but then backed off that claim.)

Further, I have repeatedly said that even if the Church's science was correct (and it wasn't--and it was based on the holy scriptures and not science), it is nevertheless an example of religion making claims about the natural world. As such it disproves B-J's description in the OP of this thread.

I've given numerous other examples of religion making claims about the natural world to further show that even if NOMA were a worthy goal to attain, it is not (and never has been) an accurate description of the reality of the relationship between science and religion with respect to the natural world (stuff "inside the box").

[JoeTheJuggler]

I found this on the above cited Galileo Wiki page:

"Vehemently suspect of heresy" was a technical term of canon law and did not necessarily imply that the Inquisition considered the opinions giving rise to the verdict to be heretical. The same verdict would have been possible even if the opinions had been subject only to the less serious censure of "erroneous in faith".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#cite_note-87

Hence, Galileo was not precisely denounced as heretic.

Yes. I've already quoted the pertinent original documents that say all this. (Please read the excerpts of the sentence that I quoted earlier in this thread.)

Did someone here say he was "denounced as a heretic"? I'm pretty sure I've been careful to use the term "suspicion of heresy" and other phrases from the original documents that I cited on this thread.

I suspect that the reason they softened it to suspicion of heresy was because by the 17th Century plain old "heresy" sounded somewhat medieval.

At any rate, the fact remains that the Church prosecuted and convicted Galileo for his scientific writings. They did so, in their own words, because they were in conflict with the holy scriptures.

Even if it were the lesser "crime" of "erroneous in faith" it would still make my point.

It was an obvious example of religion not confining itself to claims about stuff outside the box.

[Herzblut]

You said Galileo was neither. Neither what?

Galileo was neither talking frames of reference, he was talking world views. More precisely, the one and only true world view, his own.


I also don't have to show that it was possible for Galileo to keep his head down and not make waves in a Church-dominated society.

What you mean by this? It was possible to not insult the Pope? To not declare his false views the only truth - what he explicitly committed to named Pope? You call this "keeping one's head down"? Crap! This is basic common sense. The church actually encouraged him to continue and document his research on heliocentrism, the Pope himself did.


I've said repeatedly that the Copernican model was far more accurate than the geocentric model. (You claimed that they were equally false, but then backed off that claim.)

I didn't. The sun is still not the center of the world, the planets are still not moving in circles around the sun.


Further, I have repeatedly said that even if the Church's science was correct (and it wasn't--and it was based on the holy scriptures and not science), it is nevertheless an example of religion making claims about the natural world. As such it disproves B-J's description in the OP of this thread.

Obviously, the statements made in the OP don't apply to the world of 1630. I wonder which statements actually do.


I've given numerous other examples of religion making claims about the natural world to further show that even if NOMA were a worthy goal to attain, it is not (and never has been) an accurate description of the reality of the relationship between science and religion with respect to the natural world (stuff "inside the box").

You are discussing the fringe, not the center. What you cite (like creationism) are examples of religious fundamentalism. The RCC has got a particularly pro-science stance, if I am not completely wrong.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Galileo was neither talking frames of reference, he was talking world views.
OK--so why did you bring up frames of reference?

What you mean by this?
I mean exactly what I said. I don't have to show that Galileo could have done better to defend my position.

It was possible to not insult the Pope? To not declare his false views the only truth - what he explicitly committed to named Pope? You call this "keeping one's head down"? Crap! This is basic common sense.
Again, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that the Church's prosecution of Galileo is an example of religion making "inside the box" claims contrary to what B-J says.

The church actually encouraged him to continue and document his research on heliocentrism, the Pope himself did.
Let me cite the sentence again:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.

And in order that this your grave and pernicious error and transgression may not remain altogether unpunished and that you may be more cautious in the future and an example to others that they may abstain from similar delinquencies, we ordain that the book of the “Dialogues of Galileo Galilei” be prohibited by public edict.

We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy office during our pleasure, and by way of salutary penance we enjoin that for three years to come you repeat once a week at the seven penitential Psalms. Reserving to ourselves liberty to moderate, commute or take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and penance.
Sounds pretty darn discouraging to me.

ETA: The bit I highlighted refers to the fact that he had already previously been ordered by Cardinal Bellarmine "to 'hold or defend' the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_controversy)




Obviously, the statements made in the OP don't apply to the world of 1630.
Why? He made the statement that science makes claims about stuff inside the box and religion makes claims about stuff outside the box. I've shown that it isn't so.

On top of that, I've shown numerous contemporary examples of religion making claims about stuff inside the box.

You are discussing the fringe, not the center.
Bull. First, I've shown some polls earlier in the thread that show the believe in creation (rejection of evolution) runs very near to 50% in the U.S. as a whole.

Even if it were a minority position, so what? You're just making the no true Scotsman fallacy. Any time I show an example of religion making claims about the natural world, you claim that that's "the fringe". (Stoney Island says that's not "religion qua religion"--same fallacy.)

What you cite (like creationism) are examples of religious fundamentalism.
And how is it that you've decided that "religious fundamentalism" somehow is not religion? (No true Scotsman fallacy.) How can you possibly not include religious fundamentalism under the category "religion"? It's most certainly not science!

The RCC has got a particularly pro-science stance, if I am not completely wrong.
Yes? And a pro-science stance is an "outside the box" matter? That sounds very much like it concerns the natural world.

Also, I mentioned the claim that praying for the intercession of St. Blaize can protect one from "diseases of the throat and all other diseases", another Roman Catholic practice. Care to defend that one?

I've also cited claims made by other more or less mainstream religions about the natural world. (Mormon claims about the origin of New World Indians, for example.) In fact, I don't think there are any religions that limit themselves strictly to matters "outside the box".

[Herzblut]

Again, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that the Church's prosecution of Galileo is an example of religion making "inside the box" claims contrary to what B-J says.

I still don't see the contradiction, maybe I'm blind, could you explain? Where is the claim that religion is saying nothing about the inside?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I still don't see the contradiction, maybe I'm blind, could you explain? Where is the claim that religion is saying nothing about the inside?

The quote in the OP of this thread. Here it is again:

Here is a column about the compatibility of science and religion. Not only is there no incompatibility between science and religion; there can't be. Science is an attempt to understand the natural world. It has nothing to say about (1) whether there is a supernatural world or (2) what the supernatural world is like, if there is such a world. Think of the natural world as a box. Science makes claims about what's inside the box. It has nothing to say about what's outside the box. Religion makes claims about what's outside the box.

The only way for there to be no incompatibility would be for religion to limit itself to claims about the supernatural world (outside the box). If you parse this quote otherwise (as if it means "religion makes some claims about what's outside the box as well as about what's inside the box and therefore science and religion are compatible"), then it would make no sense.

So, if you agree with me that this isn't accurate (that religion has never limited itself to the supernatural), then why were you arguing that the examples I was pointing to were "fringe" or "fundamentalists" (presumably somehow not part of the category "religion")?

[Stone Island]

Here's the original post, again:

Here is a column about the compatibility of science and religion. Not only is there no incompatibility between science and religion; there can't be. Science is an attempt to understand the natural world. It has nothing to say about (1) whether there is a supernatural world or (2) what the supernatural world is like, if there is such a world. Think of the natural world as a box. Science makes claims about what's inside the box. It has nothing to say about what's outside the box. Religion makes claims about what's outside the box.

There cannot be a contradiction between religion and science because they are two separate and distinct discussions. It would be a logical impossibility. According to KBJ, insofar as some people attempt to bridge the gap they're either not doing science or they're not making a proper religious claim.

[paximperium]

There cannot be a contradiction between religion and science because they are two separate and distinct discussions. It would be a logical impossibility. According to KBJ, insofar as some people attempt to bridge the gap they're either not doing science or they're not making a proper religious claim.Then religion should keep to its own magisteria such as unfalsifiable fantasy and faith based magic and leave reality to science instead of butting in and making all sorts of nonsensical claims.

[JoeTheJuggler]

There cannot be a contradiction between religion and science because they are two separate and distinct discussions. It would be a logical impossibility.

Frankly, many articles of faith embrace logical impossibilities.

At any rate, I've shown abundantly that religion has not limited itself to its own magisterium and thus avoided conflict with science.

[Stone Island]

Frankly, many articles of faith embrace logical impossibilities.

At any rate, I've shown abundantly that religion has not limited itself to its own magisterium and thus avoided conflict with science.

1. Really?

2. Have you? Abundantly? Again, you're not making a proper distinction between religion, the religious, and Churches as social organizations.

[paximperium]

1. Really?

2. Have you? Abundantly? Again, you're not making a proper distinction between religion, the religious, and Churches as social organizations.
Would you like to define religion right now and then rephrase your statement so that you won't be able to move the goalpost later on?

[JoeTheJuggler]

1. Really?
Yes really.

2. Have you?
Yes I have.

Abundantly?
Yes, abundantly.

Again, you're not making a proper distinction between religion, the religious, and Churches as social organizations.
Again, you're committing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Any time I show you an example of religion making claims about stuff in the natural world, you just claim that that doesn't count as religion.

Or. . "religion qua religion". The fact that there has been such a thing as "religion qua political authority" or "religion qua teaching authority" or even "religion qua terrorist organization" belies the claim that religion limits itself to claims about the supernatural.

Those guys that flew airplanes into the World Trade Center towers. . . .were they motivated by religion?

[Stone Island]

Would you like to define religion right now and then rephrase your statement so that you won't be able to move the goalpost later on?

"Religion (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12738a.htm), broadly speaking, means the voluntary subjection of oneself to God."

[paximperium]

"Religion (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12738a.htm), broadly speaking, means the voluntary subjection of oneself to God."
Really? So Buddhism, Hinduism and Voodoun are not religions?

[Herzblut]

The only way for there to be no incompatibility would be for religion to limit itself to claims about the supernatural world (outside the box).

That's your interpretation, but not stated anywhere explicitly. And your notion is not the only one possible.

Another possible notion is that religion and science operate in different realms. For instance, science makes descriptive claims (knowledge gain, "is") and religion prescriptive ones (moral codes, "ought to").

[paximperium]

Another possible notion is that religion and science operate in different realms.
So has been claimed by many and which is inherently false.

For instance, science makes descriptive claims (knowledge gain, "is") and religion prescriptive ones (moral codes, "ought to").
Really? And what basis does religion have for any "ought"'s it might deem to claim?

Science has a basis in reality. What basis does religion have?

[Herzblut]

Really? And what basis does religion have for any "ought"'s it might deem to claim?

God's will.


Science has a basis in reality. What basis does religion have?
Social interaction.

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's your interpretation, but not stated anywhere explicitly. And your notion is not the only one possible.
As I pointed out, in fact, it is the only possible interpretation. If you took it to mean religion sometimes makes claims outside the box and sometimes inside, the rest of the quoted material makes no sense at all. It's obvious that he meant religion and science have completely separate (as in disjointed or non-overlapping) subject matter and that's why they can't possibly be in conflict.

Another possible notion is that religion and science operate in different realms. For instance, science makes descriptive claims (knowledge gain, "is") and religion prescriptive ones (moral codes, "ought to").
And again, that would be wonderful if it were so, but religion has not limited itself to those sort of claims either. (I'm not sure you can make meaningful prescriptive claims without assuming or relying on descriptive claims--so there would be plenty of places for conflict in this system too.)

At any rate, that's the not the description of science and religion that was given here. This one clearly said it was about claims made regarding stuff in the natural world vs. claims made about stuff outside that.

As Godless Dave pointed out early on, since we have no evidence that there is anything outside the natural world, it could be that the realm of religion doesn't even exist.

[paximperium]

God's will.
Does this have any correlation to reality at all?


Social interaction.Social interaction is based in reality and is within the realm of science. It is an "is" and not an "ought".

[Herzblut]

So has been claimed by many and which is inherently false.

You honestly claim that science and religion operate in the same realm? That's freaky.

[Stone Island]

Science has a basis in reality. What basis does religion have?

You should say, "Science has a basis in the natural world"

It's a question as to whether there is a supernatural world. If there is a supernatural world, it would be as "real" as the natural.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You honestly claim that science and religion operate in the same realm? That's freaky.
I deny the existence of the supernatural, so yes, in fact, I think religion exists and operates wholly in the natural world. (The two realms described in the OP.)

Taking on the idea that the two magisteria are "descriptive" vs "prescriptive", I've already mentioned that the two overlap and interact. Is political science part of religion?

[Foster Zygote]

You should say, "Science has a basis in the natural world"

It's a question as to whether there is a supernatural world. If there is a supernatural world, it would be as "real" as the natural.

The same can be said of leprechauns and unicorns.

[paximperium]

You honestly claim that science and religion operate in the same realm? That's freaky.
Yes. It operates in reality, one based on evidence and one based on fantasy.

[paximperium]

You should say, "Science has a basis in the natural world"

It's a question as to whether there is a supernatural world. If there is a supernatural world, it would be as "real" as the natural.
If there are immortal flying monkeys with laser eyes, it would be as real as a real monkeys.

Care to tell me of anything that is supernatural that actually exists?

[Foster Zygote]

Here's the original post, again:



There cannot be a contradiction between religion and science because they are two separate and distinct discussions. It would be a logical impossibility. According to KBJ, insofar as some people attempt to bridge the gap they're either not doing science or they're not making a proper religious claim.

Ah, so when people try to force the teaching of creationism in public schools or restrict the freedoms of others because what they do privately and consensually is forbidden by religious scriptures, it doesn't count because they're eating their porridge with sugar. I get it now.

[Stone Island]

As Godless Dave pointed out early on, since we have no evidence that there is anything outside the natural world, it could be that the realm of religion doesn't even exist.

Aside from the cliche a lack of evidence isn't evidence of a lack, I also have to point out that we've already stipulated that there isn't possibly any evidence, in scientific terms. If there were scientific evidence the phenomenon in question would be natural, not supernatural.

[Herzblut]

Does this have any correlation to reality at all?

Sure, what people belief God's will is, is an empirical observation. Whether they are right or wrong, isn't.


Social interaction is based in reality and is within the realm of science. It is an "is" and not an "ought".
Science describes different social rules, but doesn't prescribe any of those. In contrast to religion.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And then there is such a thing as secular approaches to morality (various kinds of utilitarianism, for example). While I don't think philosophy is properly "science", it's closer to science than it is to religion. And it certainly makes claims on what you're saying is the realm of religion. And, with more advances in neuroscience, someday it might find itself wholly in the realm of science. (This would be in keeping with the historical trend of stuff that used to be explained by religion.)

If and when that happens, what happens to religion?

[Stone Island]

I deny the existence of the supernatural, so yes, in fact, I think religion exists and operates wholly in the natural world. (The two realms described in the OP.)

Taking on the idea that the two magisteria are "descriptive" vs "prescriptive", I've already mentioned that the two overlap and interact. Is political science part of religion?
Which part of political science, the prescriptive of descriptive?

[Stone Island]

Does this have any correlation to reality at all?

Social interaction is based in reality and is within the realm of science. It is an "is" and not an "ought".

Observed: Some fathers have sex with their daughters

Some believe that fathers ought not have sex with their daughters.
Some believe that fathers ought have sex with their daughters.

Is there any truth to a claim that one of those ought statements is wrong and the other is correct?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Law is another field of study that occupies a big chunk of that prescriptive realm.

Does this mean law is religion?

At any rate, pretty much the same arguments I've used on the issue of natural/supernatural (or inside vs. outside the box) apply to the descriptive/prescriptive realms. Religion has not limited itself to the prescriptive.

I'd point you again to the contemporary court cases I mentioned several times now.

[Upchurch]

Aside from the cliche a lack of evidence isn't evidence of a lack, I also have to point out that we've already stipulated that there isn't possibly any evidence, in scientific terms.
Sure, just so long as you remember that a lack of evidence against isn't evidence for. At best, it is unknown.

And being unknown, we cannot speak of it as knowledge. Speculation, imagination, or even fantasy perhaps, but not knowledge.

[paximperium]

Observed: Some fathers have sex with their daughters

Some believe that fathers ought not have sex with their daughters.
Some believe that fathers ought have sex with their daughters.

Is there any truth to a claim that one of those ought statements is wrong and the other is correct?
They are both true statements.
On what basis do you want me to make this judgment of wrong vs. correct?

[Stone Island]

And then there is such a thing as secular approaches to morality (various kinds of utilitarianism, for example). While I don't think philosophy is properly "science", it's closer to science than it is to religion.

Be careful, you don't want to be caught up in the analogy.

Philosophy is a second-order discipline

In addition, reducing everything to brain-chemistry is a massive begging of the question.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sure, just so long as you remember that a lack of evidence against isn't evidence for. At best, it is unknown.

And being unknown, we cannot speak of it as knowledge. Speculation, imagination, or even fantasy perhaps, but not knowledge.

Yep. And that's why I (and Godless Dave much earlier) said that the supernatural or "outside the box" may not exist.

Stone Island seems to think we asserted that it does not exist. He responds to things I never said with some regularity.

[paximperium]

In addition, reducing everything to brain-chemistry is a massive begging of the question.Please explain.