Religious Arguments against Science - The Old and New

[MineralMan]

The Roman Catholic church argued for some time against the theories of Galileo and others regarding astronomy. As I look at some of the 17th century arguments shown below against the idea that the Earth rotates on its axis, I'm struck by the similarity of their illogic to arguments made today by some religious folks to counter current scientific theories. See it you can see the parallels:

“Animals, which move, have limbs and muscles; the earth has no limbs or muscles, therefore it does not move.” — Scipio Chiaramonti, Professor of philosophy and mathematics at University of Pisa, 1633

“Buildings and the earth itself would fly off with such a rapid motion that men would have to be provided with claws like cats to enable them to hold fast to the earth’s surface.” — Libertus Fromundus, professor and Doctor of Theology at Louvain University and the Dean of the church of St. Pierre, Belgium,.Anti-Aristarchus, 1631


“If we concede the motion of the earth, why is it that an arrow shot into the air falls back to the same spot, while the earth and all the things on it have in the meantime moved very rapidly toward the east? Who does not see that great confusion would result from this motion?” — Giorgio Polacco, a Jesuit committed to church doctrine, Anticopernicus Catholicus, 1644

Keep in mind that the King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611. And the beat goes on...

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. LOL somebody pissed you off at some point about religion

And you are NEVER gonna let them forget it

THIS is why we will win if we win in November and beyond. The PASSION of logical, decent, honest people like yourself.

I havent paid close enough attention to what started all this, but it is funny to me, being an atheist and all.

[MineralMan]

2. Not really. I'm not pissed off as much as puzzled.

Anyhow, DU's Religion Group is dedicated to discussing religion. Both believers and non-believers are active in that Group, so there's lots of this sort of thing to be found there. It's the most active topic Group discussion area on Democratic Underground. It's lively, controversial, and full of fun discussions for one and all.

Science, religion and the busy, dangerous intersection between those two disciplines is a common source of amusement there.

[Eliot Rosewater]

5. Yeah "pissed" is the wrong word for what you have been doing, sorry, just amusing to me.

My son is very religious and liberal, I am an atheist.

We have fun talking about it too.

It sounds like I am accusing you of something, I am not, you know that, I am just getting a kick out of you. Sometimes I wonder if we were separated at birth, twins, etc.

[Cartoonist]

3. The earth does not move

There were no earthquakes, volcanoes, or landslides back then?

[MineralMan]

6. Underground demons, led by Satan.

That's what explains all of those things. Look at volcanoes. Fire under the earth. Ergo - Hell exists, based on the evidence.

It's so simple, really.

[Cartoonist]

8. What about tides?

I read somewhere in a book that even Galileo thought it was just water sloshing about.

[MineralMan]

9. God's plan, I guess, until gravity was understood better.

You know I don't know how they explained tides. Let me go see if I can find out...

OK:

Medieval understanding of the tides was primarily based on works of Muslim astronomers, which became available through Latin translation starting from the 12th century.[17] Abu Ma'shar (d. circa 886), in his Introductorium in astronomiam, taught that ebb and flood tides were caused by the moon (although earlier in Europe, Bede (d. 736) also reckoned that the moon is involved).[17] Abu Ma'shar discussed the effects of wind and moon's phases relative to the sun on the tides.[17] In the 12th century, al-Bitruji (d. circa 1204) contributed the notion that the tides were caused by the general circulation of the heavens.[17]

Simon Stevin in his 1608 De spiegheling der Ebbenvloet, The theory of ebb and flood, dismissed a large number of misconceptions that still existed about ebb and flood. Stevin pleaded for the idea that the attraction of the Moon was responsible for the tides and spoke in clear terms about ebb, flood, spring tide and neap tide, stressing that further research needed to be made.[18][19]

In 1609 Johannes Kepler also correctly suggested that the gravitation of the Moon caused the tides,[20] which he based upon ancient observations and correlations. It was originally mentioned in Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos[21] as having derived from ancient observation.

Galileo Galilei in his 1632 Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, whose working title was Dialogue on the Tides, gave an explanation of the tides. The resulting theory, however, was incorrect as he attributed the tides to the sloshing of water caused by the Earth's movement around the sun. He hoped to provide mechanical proof of the Earth's movement. The value of his tidal theory is disputed. Galileo rejected Kepler's explanation of the tides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#History_of_tidal_physics

[Cartoonist]

11. Science keeps working out stuff

. . . further research needed to be made.

Ain't that the truth? Bible research will only get you so far.

[Permanut]

12. According to Bill O'Reilly..

we still don't know how it works. Same with the refrigerator light coming on when you open the door. Definite proof of Divine intervention.

[Mariana]

16. Bill O'Reilly, that great man of science.

[Act_of_Reparation]

18. Underground demons led by Satan?

Sounds fuckin' metal m/

[njhoneybadger]

4. Maybe Gill has the answer

[MineralMan]

7. Perhaps.

NOMA, happen? (Said in a thick Yorkshire dialect accent)

[trotsky]

10. Oh I doubt he'll have an answer.

But he'll absolutely have a response.

[bitterross]

13. Amazes me we still believe in Bronze/Iron Age Religions

Seriously. We don't believe in the religions of the ancient Greeks and Romans. We don't believe the common misconceptions of peoples of those times.

Why there is the human need to cling to the supernatural amazes me. Reality is so fulfilling and amazing without ascribing things to supernatural entities. Sure, we can't explain everything with our current scientific understanding. That's just par for the course and part of the process though. It's not a failing by any means to admit something needs more study to understand it.

Which, I guess, is sort of an explanation. We humans are not a very patient lot. We want everything and we want it NOW. If we don't understand something then we make up a story of supernatural origin so we have the answer NOW.

[MineralMan]

14. People are, and probably always going to be, scared of death.

That could be the common denominator in the persistence of religion. Christianity has a neatly configured, simple method for that. You simply believe in something and you get to live forever after dying here. The rest of it is decorative and superfluous, mostly.

[bitterross]

15. Good point. I'm being a bit of a tool, but science offers us hope too.

If you want to believe in an afterlife I think you can do it scientifically. E=MC2 is the answer. We are all made of the stuff of stars and just the Bible has the ashes to ashes part we will all return to star dust.

That doesn't sound so bad to me. The energy that is my matter will become something else after it is no longer me. I'm okay with living forever in that manner.

[MineralMan]

17. Sure. That's my attitude, too.

I get my time. It's enough.