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
