5 of 5
5
Pope not welcome.
Posted: 24 January 2008 08:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  542
Joined  2007-09-29

I’m content that one man in the forum thanked me for a few links I gave - none of which had much directly to do with theology.

My chief claim all along has been that an otherwise reasonable man could argue that Galileo’s trial was not unjust. Therefore, holding that view can’t (just in itself) be a good reason to censure Benedict (or any man), or claim that he is without academic authority. So far, no-one has refuted that narrow point, and silence is some evidence of consent - altho’ exhaustion’s a common cause of silence!

Kirk

[ Edited: 27 January 2008 05:42 PM by inthegobi ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 January 2008 06:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2007-07-16
inthegobi - 22 January 2008 08:41 PM

Quotes from the BBC article that Scienceoverreligions helpfully gave:

In 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret at the way Galileo had been treated. “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture,” he said.

Since John Paul was getting his chief advice from then Ratzinger, it’s difficult to see why one would make out Ratzinger’s remarks on Galileo to be so at variance with John Paul’s communique. ‘Just’ isn’t ‘correct’ (rational and successful aren’t identical); the trial can be just but the punishment regrettable.

Yes u’re right, why should we continue to listen to those old remarks and theological nonsenses? It’s a dead paradigm, if those poor remarks can be considered a kunhian paradigm.

inthegobi - 22 January 2008 08:41 PM

The academics at La Sapienza signed a letter saying Pope Benedict’s views Very wiseon Galileo “offend and humiliate us”.

A man’s words about a very dead man cannot rationally offend and humiliate strangers.

Very wise remark but I didn’t get who’s the very dead man. Did u mean who said those poor words?

inthegobi - 22 January 2008 08:41 PM

They said it would be inappropriate for the Pope to open their academic year on Thursday.

See, why not stick with that, instead of the blather about offense and humiliation?

But why not sticking with the fact that we don’t want to hear “His” blathers anymore? he’s only a Feyerabend’s misquoter.

inthegobi - 22 January 2008 08:41 PM

It’s a good thing that someone in Italy has the courage to say no to the Pope.
Stefano, Cuneo, Italy

This was a comment on the article. Heh, this Italian obviously hasn’t knocked elbows with all the anti-clerical Italians out there. ‘Someone in Italy’, ho ho. Like it’s *finally* happend, *after all these years of kow-towing*. Ho ho ho.

Ho ho ho now knock ur elbows on the heaven’s door, is Santa laughing? ho ho. Yes it’s finally happened.

inthegobi - 22 January 2008 08:41 PM

“In the name of the secular nature of science we hope this incongruous event can be cancelled,” said the letter addressed to the university’s rector, Renato Guarini.

That’s just weird. Besides, La Sapienza has more than science majors.

Who’s the weird here? Guess. And let me add we have lot of faculties but not the faculty of theology at La Sapienza. No superstitions, Thank You.

inthegobi - 22 January 2008 08:41 PM

In a separate initiative, students at La Sapienza organised four days of protest this week. The first revolved around an anti-clerical meal of bread, pork and wine.

I wish the BBC had told us why bread pork and wine are anti-clerical - or did the writer just want to tell us what they had for dinner while being anti-clerical?

Ho, ho, ho, Santa. U made me laugh again.

inthegobi - 22 January 2008 08:41 PM

The banner at their lunch read: “Knowledge needs neither fathers nor priests”.

Well, obviously false in the first part. Every student needs a teacher, an intellectual father. And materially false in the second part - natural science was practiced by pretty much only priests for centuries (since they had the education.) There’s also an ‘arguable’ thesis that a certain religious view of the world was necessary for scientific knowledge to grow. I won’t defend it - it’s out there.

Right, natural science WAS practiced by pretty much only priests for centuries (MORE OR LESS), a certain religious view of the world WAS necessary for scientific knowledge to grow (MORE OR LESS). Science has started to be adult, dear old Santa.

 Signature 

http://www.myspace.com/scienceoverreligions

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2008 02:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2422
Joined  2007-09-03
inthegobi - 24 January 2008 08:39 PM

I’m content that one man in the forum thanked me for a few links I gave - none of which had much directly to do with theology.

My chief claim all along has been that an otherwise reasonable man could argue that Galileo’s trial was not unjust. Therefore, holding that view can’t (just in itself) be a good reason to censure Benedict (or any man), or claim that he is without academic authority. So far, no-one has refuted that narrow point, and silence is some evidence of consent - altho’ exhaustion’s a common cause of silence!

Check out the reformation.org site on my new thread, ‘Rogues’ Gallery’.

Kirk

Kirk, the reference to reformation.org seems to be a non sequiter.

Going over your posts, the info doesn’t seem to me to justify the treatment of Galileo. 
I think that this position is supported by the church, which waited xxx years to clear him of heresy

I believe Pope John Paul II tried to say something to the effect of, if we had it to do over, we would do it differently.  And many of us ‘hear’ Ratzinger saying the opposite.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2008 05:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  542
Joined  2007-09-29
Jackson - 27 January 2008 02:57 PM
inthegobi - 24 January 2008 08:39 PM

I’m content that one man in the forum thanked me for a few links I gave - none of which had much directly to do with theology.

My chief claim all along has been that an otherwise reasonable man could argue that Galileo’s trial was not unjust. Therefore, holding that view can’t (just in itself) be a good reason to censure Benedict (or any man), or claim that he is without academic authority. So far, no-one has refuted that narrow point, and silence is some evidence of consent - altho’ exhaustion’s a common cause of silence!

Kirk

Kirk, the reference to reformation.org seems to be a non sequiter.

Yes, it was. It was just because I was finished. I - thought someone might be interested in it. I’m a little hurt you treat even that with suspicion.

Look, why did I join? simply because I like to talk to people with opinions different from mine. I’m not here to argue every possible opinion on which we *might* differ. Notice I have not myself ever said what *I* think the real answer is to the Church and Galileo’s trial. And you all make me nervous: no matter what it is, you’ll find something to needle me about, no matter how prima facie difficult the anti-religion claim is (‘Benedict is a nut; Benedict shouldn’t be thought of as an academic’). These are too much like Dawkin’s claim that all religion s a form of child-abuse. That’s just too extreme to involve any common ground between two people who differ. (Shruggin) Yes, true, I didn’t join a ladies’ knitting chat room, either.

But Jackson, in some common friendship of reason, notice this:

Going over your posts, the info doesn’t seem to me to justify the treatment of Galileo. 
I think that this position is supported by the church, which waited xxx years to clear him of heresy

Consider the exact logical meaning of my claim - not what you “hear” in it. You will notice that it is consistent with your claim. See?

I believe Pope John Paul II tried to say something to the effect of, if we had it to do over, we would do it differently.  And many of us ‘hear’ Ratzinger saying the opposite.

And do you ‘see’ the danger of running a debate on what you ‘hear’ in your inner ear? And may I be allowed to ask a little more of a mathematician? Of course, there is another move you could make: you could shift to denying even that weak claim of mine. But to what end? To be able to say ‘I have proved that Benedict must be crazy.’ Is that all this thread is about? It is a claim that will do no work in the real world, even if you could provide such a proof. It’s just something for an atheist to gaze at lovingly, like a ball of glass. It’s a *trap* of a claim to prove.

Suppose I really have the your interests at heart, Jackson. I claim that to pursue this course of argument about Bnedict - the particular one about his 15 year old words about Galileo - then you’re dooming your own cause to a little more ineffectiveness. (Shrugging) I’m not insincere about this.

If I have any smugness, I apologize. But you have to admit, this La Sapienza business itself is a tempest in a teapot. I haven’t brought up a single of the most controversial issues raised in this thread, and I couldn’t move fast enough away from them to be tarred with believing everything Benedict believes. I simply haven’t told you what I believe about any of them myself.

Some folk here have their intense problems with Benedict, and with the Catholic Church - and i don’t begrudge them their grudges; and here I am, conveniently at hand - too conveniently. I’m touched you need a substitute father figure to pile before him the sins of all authority - but i’m not your shrink, and they usually charge big bucks for that. I’m just a rather ordinary person in most ways, but interested in a little testing and considering.

Yes, yes, yes. I’m a philosophical theist (when I have the time), I’m a Christian, and even a Catholic. I even joined. But that’s a very long, long story,. and much of it is frankly no stranger’s business. But there are natural costs to being on a forum, and I tell you what. If you have some issue - fine. I’ll do my best. But I get the dignity of picking and choosing. I’m not an expert in many fields, and I’m not multi-brained, and etc. And, well - i’d like to be considered some kind of member of this group, not just an interloper. If i’ve misread the ‘free’ in freethinker, that’s my problem, not yours.

And I’ll only ever claim to do what Galileo himself claims to do in the first two Days of the Dialogues: whatever I’m claiming, it’s not impossible, it’s not absurd (and so not crazy to believe it’s true, just on those grounds), and sometimes it’s plausible - it is believable, it ‘has legs’ as I sometimes will say informally.

Thank you for your patience. I hope to enjoy the many parts of this forum I don’t happen to participate in, and I’m not here to simply needle others, and please, please, please calm down just a little bit about me. Many people here are seeing what’s not quite there. I’m sorry - but I can’t really pretend to not be a bit snarky, a bit sharp-tongued, and a bit knowing of at least some of the relevant material - and sometimes i have waon an argument outside of this forum. Sometimes. I also enjoy comedy, and other fast-paced material, and I coe from a long line of (bad) joke tellers. Just be patient.

If none of that works, think of it this way: You’ll have years to hate me if you plan it right, so settle in.

I hope that helps get a couple of thorny branches out from under all our butts - so to speak.

Kirk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2008 05:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2422
Joined  2007-09-03
inthegobi - 27 January 2008 05:06 PM

Thank you for your patience.
.....
I hope that helps get a couple of thorny branches out from under all our butts - so to speak.

Kirk

Although at first it sounded like reformation.org was supposed to support your point, which threw me off…maybe you could put in a minor edit to your post (hence why it seems like a non sequiter)

One of the things I like about this forum is hearing/reading opinions & perspectives that are different than mine.  Thanks again for sharing your ideas and also links where other views are expressed. 


Kind of hard to hit a happy medium between listening and expressing my own thoughts…

Jackson

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2008 05:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  542
Joined  2007-09-29
Jackson - 27 January 2008 05:21 PM

..maybe you could put in a minor edit to your post (hence why it seems like a non sequiter)

Done. A wise suggestion.

Thanks much.

Kirk

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 5
5