What do you make of Tim O'Neil's "History for Atheists"?

[Cheerful Charlie]

It's real simple for me. If you know beyond any doubt whatsoever that you will be tortured and burned alive for misspeaking, that puts a bit of a damper on things generally, wouldn't you agree?

Agree. Just as any dedicated muslim historian who uncovered indisputable proof that Muhammad was a drunkard bi-sexual would never mention the fact to anyone in the leadership of ISIS. Self censorship out of fear is the most insidious deterrent to revealing truths. They may, however, mention that they discovered that Muhammad enjoyed parties.... stated with sufficient innocence implied.

Most certainly not have published in their life time. Posthumously. Some of Rene Descarte's works, with held specifically to avoid trouble with the RCC. And Jean Messlier.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ummm, did you actually read my article on Pius XII?

Yes.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

What gives you the idea that I am "unwilling to consider that I may possibly be wrong about some things"? I used to fully accept the common understanding of the Galileo Affair and was quite startled when I first came across the idea that it was largely incorrect. This didn't sit well with me, because as a young atheist I preferred the version of the story where it was a straight-forward clash between scientific discovery and ignorant religion. But because I WAS open to the possibility that I may be wrong, I researched further, got a much more informed grasp of the subject and ... changed my mind.

Well there is the fact that you continually insist that the church did not try Galileo for claiming that the Earth orbited the sun rather than that the Earth was stationary. You use the trick that people living under authoritarian oppression use by using euphemisms rather than clear speech. You keep repeating that the church didn't interfere in scientific matters and that he was tried for discussing theological matters. Indeed so.. but those theological matters were his scientific claim that the Earth orbited the Sun.

Just in case you somehow missed it in your study of the time, the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be heretical in 1616. It was Galileo's claim that the Earth moved about the sun that brought him before the Inquisition.

People involved in science, and everyone else, who live under authoritarian control understood that speaking euphemistically about subjects that are frowned on by the Church rather than directly could keep them off the rack... Galileo supposedly appreciated truth, honesty, and clear speech (as is necessary for good science).

 

[atrib]

So as long as the findings of people like Galileo did not interfere with or contradict the Church's current dogmas, it was acceptable. When it did, well, you ended up tied to a stake on a wooden platform that would be lit on fire. Perhaps with your tongue stapled to the top of your mouth so you couldn't complain.

So why then is the number of people who were burned at the stake for anything to do with science ... zero?


Sorry, but actual historians of science disagree with you. Galileo and others before him represent the beginning of the application of the true scientific method and the establishment of actual science as we know it today.

There were individuals who had an interest in nature who pursued their curiosities and reported on their findings, sometimes with financial assistance from well-heeled benefactors. And then there was the Church, who believed in the inerrant word of their god, and woe befall anybody who was unfortunate enough to start dabbling in "theology", God's description of how the natural world worked.

That is a silly caricature that bears no relationship to actual history. I'm afraid repeating this silly cartoonish nonsense doesn't make it true.

Galileo was indicted by the Church on charges of heresy, for continuing to publish and defend his ideas regarding a heliocentric model, despite being forbidden by the Church to do so. And for perhaps inadvertently ridiculing the Pope, but I don't think those were included in the charges. Although he was not formally convicted of heresy, he was sentenced to house arrest. Is this factually correct?

In an earlier post you had stated:

The Church most definitely did not welcome religious dissent. On matters of what we call science, however, it did not have any problems with "new ideas and free inquiry". Its guiding principle there was the idea of the "Two Books Doctrine". Revelation via the Bible and the Church Fathers ("the Book of God") was held to always be fundamentally in harmony with rational inquiry into the natural world and natural philosophy ("the Book of Nature"). So in any cases where one seemed to be in conflict with the other, they thought the issue always had to be one of interpretation.

You claim that Galileo was persecuted for "religious dissent", and that the Church did not have any problems with "new ideas and free inquiry". But Galileo's dissent of Church doctrine (geocentrism) stemmed from his scientific observations and ideas. In other words, Galileo was NOT free to research and publish his scientific findings, because said findings contradicted Church doctrine. Whether the "scientific consensus" of the day matched Galileo's findings is irrelevant to the question of whether the Church allowed free inquiry.

So where is the line between free scientific inquiry and heresy? Is the debate of geocentrism vs. heliocentrism a scientific debate or a religious debate? The answer may be obvious today, but in Galileo's time the answer was decided by the Church. In my opinion, it is misleading to claim that Galileo was persecuted for theological reasons, and not for his scientific opinions, because the two are deeply intertwined and cannot be easily separated. You also appear to be adding a veneer of sophistication and tolerance to the Church that is directly contradicted by their actions. Sophisticated, tolerant people do not torture and kill people who disagree with them.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You also appear to be adding a veneer of sophistication and tolerance to the Church that is directly contradicted by their actions. Sophisticated, tolerant people do not torture and kill people who disagree with them.

A very, very, very, thin veneer. To Tim ONeill's credit he has likened the Roman Church of Galileo's time to today's ISIS. That is a pretty damning comparison.

 

[skepticalbip]

Galileo was indicted by the Church on charges of heresy, for continuing to publish and defend his ideas regarding a heliocentric model, despite being forbidden by the Church to do so. And for perhaps inadvertently ridiculing the Pope, but I don't think those were included in the charges. Although he was not formally convicted of heresy, he was sentenced to house arrest. Is this factually correct?

It is correct that he was not convicted of heresy but only because he recanted, so claimed to accept the Church's 'truth' that the Earth was stationary and the center of the universe. A failure to recant would have led to his execution for heresy.

I assume that he spent the rest of his life under house arrest because the Inquisition didn't consider that his recanting was sincere enough.

 

[Tim ONeill]

Ummm, did you actually read my article on Pius XII?

Yes.

Okay. Then it's very strange that your conclusion would be that "Now you could say that accommodation and acquiescence was the most pragmatic (official) policy, but you can't really call it unaccommodation." I don't say that at all. What I note is (i) Pacelli and his predecessor were both vehemently anti-Nazi from the 1920s onward and were seen as enemies by the Nazis as a result, (ii) once the Nazis came to power, Pacelli and Pius XI were among many (the German conservatives, Stalin, Chamberlain) who thought Hitler could be constrained by agreements, so chose the Concordat as the best of an array of bad options, (iii) when it became clear that this was a failed policy, they switched to an approach of thinly veiled outward neutrality while working behind the scenes with both the Allies and the German resistance to see Hitler overthrown and/or assassinated. To call that "accommodation and acquiescence" is a bizarre distortion of history. They sought to have Hitler killed. That's about as anti-Nazi as you can get.

 

[Tim ONeill]

... snip ...

What gives you the idea that I am "unwilling to consider that I may possibly be wrong about some things"? I used to fully accept the common understanding of the Galileo Affair and was quite startled when I first came across the idea that it was largely incorrect. This didn't sit well with me, because as a young atheist I preferred the version of the story where it was a straight-forward clash between scientific discovery and ignorant religion. But because I WAS open to the possibility that I may be wrong, I researched further, got a much more informed grasp of the subject and ... changed my mind.

Well there is the fact that you continually insist that the church did not try Galileo for claiming that the Earth orbited the sun rather than that the Earth was stationary. You use the trick that people living under authoritarian oppression use by using euphemisms rather than clear speech. You keep repeating that the church didn't interfere in scientific matters and that he was tried for discussing theological matters. Indeed so.. but those theological matters were his scientific claim that the Earth orbited the Sun.

What I am trying to do is explain why insisting that the science was the primary issue is nonsense. If that were the case, they would have persecuted Copernicus from 1514 onwards, instead of sponsoring his work, encouraging him and offering to help him get his book published. They would have persecuted Kepler instead of not being bothered by him in the slightest. And they would have persecuted Galileo in the decade or more in which he made his heliocentric views patently clear, including in books that the Inquisition examined and passed for publication. So obviously something changed in 1616. This is the point that you seem determined to ignore.

Just in case you somehow missed it in your study of the time, the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be heretical in 1616. It was Galileo's claim that the Earth moved about the sun that brought him before the Inquisition.

I didn't "miss" that at all - I know rather more about that than most people including, I suspect, you. But I'm trying to put that in context so you can understand that this was not because they had some problem with science. What happened was Galileo started applying his ideas to Biblical interpretation - first in private and then increasingly in public, via widely circulated writings. This changed things completely. That led to a cascade of events that led to the the Inquisition feeling it had to check if the science was on Galileo's side and, on confirming that it was not, ruling that he could not teach heliocentrism as proven fact when it was (in 1616 and in 1633) nothing of the sort. Even then they had no problem with him continuing to examine the whole issue - that's why they encouraged him to write his Dialogue.

People involved in science, and everyone else, who live under authoritarian control understood that speaking euphemistically about subjects that are frowned on by the Church rather than directly could keep them off the rack... Galileo supposedly appreciated truth, honesty, and clear speech (as is necessary for good science).

No-one required him to speak "euphemistically". He was just required to present the state of play accurately - and present heliocentrism as what it was: one of about SIX competing cosmological models, none of which were without scientific problems at that stage. Out of a combination of misreading the situation (he thought the new Pope was friendlier to him than he turned out to be), overestimating the strength of his arguments (he really thought his failed argument from tides was a clincher and it wasn't) and a degree of hubris (Galileo loved to win debates) he overplayed his hand and wore the kind of consequences you could run into an period before untrammelled free inquiry.

None of this is somehow blaming him or exonerating the Church or making any kind of value judgement at all. It's simply noting that the situation was very complex and that reducing it to caricature out of ideological biases is warping history.

 

[Tim ONeill]

Galileo was indicted by the Church on charges of heresy, for continuing to publish and defend his ideas regarding a heliocentric model, despite being forbidden by the Church to do so. And for perhaps inadvertently ridiculing the Pope, but I don't think those were included in the charges. Although he was not formally convicted of heresy, he was sentenced to house arrest. Is this factually correct?

Galileo was indicted for presenting an unproven theory that still had major scientific problems as fact and using that theory to reinterpret the Bible. He agreed not to present it as fact and then proceeded to pretty clearly do so in his 1632 Dialogue. As a result, he was convicted of the lowest grade of heresy ("being vehemently suspect of heresy") and was sentenced to house arrest.

In an earlier post you had stated:

The Church most definitely did not welcome religious dissent. On matters of what we call science, however, it did not have any problems with "new ideas and free inquiry". Its guiding principle there was the idea of the "Two Books Doctrine". Revelation via the Bible and the Church Fathers ("the Book of God") was held to always be fundamentally in harmony with rational inquiry into the natural world and natural philosophy ("the Book of Nature"). So in any cases where one seemed to be in conflict with the other, they thought the issue always had to be one of interpretation.

You claim that Galileo was persecuted for "religious dissent", and that the Church did not have any problems with "new ideas and free inquiry".

No, I said that the Church definitely did have a problem with religious dissent, but that it did not have problems with new scientific ideas. What makes the Galileo Affair exceptional is that the two got entangled for the very first time. Galileo's heliocentrism was ignored until he began venturing out into theology by reinterpreting scripture. That led his academic enemies to have a preacher condemn him publicly and the 1616 inquiry by the Inquisition. They ruled (correctly) that his ideas were not proven and so should not be taught as fact. He agreed. Then in 1632 he wrote a book that pretty clearly did present it as fact and so he got convicted of heresy for breaking his commitment not to do so.

But Galileo's dissent of Church doctrine (geocentrism) stemmed from his scientific observations and ideas. In other words, Galileo was NOT free to research and publish his scientific findings, because said findings contradicted Church doctrine. Whether the "scientific consensus" of the day matched Galileo's findings is irrelevant to the question of whether the Church allowed free inquiry.

After 1616 he was not free to present his theory as fact. I have never claimed otherwise. He was free to explore the idea. In fact, he was encouraged to do so.

So where is the line between free scientific inquiry and heresy? Is the debate of geocentrism vs. heliocentrism a scientific debate or a religious debate?

Due to some exceptional and highly unusual circumstances, it became both after 1616. I'm trying to explain why and what that means.

 

[Tim ONeill]

Galileo was indicted by the Church on charges of heresy, for continuing to publish and defend his ideas regarding a heliocentric model, despite being forbidden by the Church to do so. And for perhaps inadvertently ridiculing the Pope, but I don't think those were included in the charges. Although he was not formally convicted of heresy, he was sentenced to house arrest. Is this factually correct?

It is correct that he was not convicted of heresy but only because he recanted, so claimed to accept the Church's 'truth' that the Earth was stationary and the center of the universe.

That is not correct. He was convicted of "being vehemently suspect of heresy" - the lowest grade of heresy. That's why he recanted.

A failure to recant would have led to his execution for heresy.

Not for this level of heresy it wouldn't. It would have led to a harsher sentence, but not death. You had to be pretty damn "heretical" and totally unrepentant to get executed.

I assume that he spent the rest of his life under house arrest because the Inquisition didn't consider that his recanting was sincere enough.

Also wrong. He was sentenced to house arrest because he was convicted of heresy. The original sentence was imprisonment, but that was commuted. Even then, many people considered the sentence unduly harsh. There was some politics at play around the time of the trial that meant some in the Curia felt they had to be seen to be holding a tough line.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ummm, did you actually read my article on Pius XII?

Yes.

Okay. Then it's very strange that your conclusion would be that "Now you could say that accommodation and acquiescence was the most pragmatic (official) policy, but you can't really call it unaccommodation." I don't say that at all. What I note is (i) Pacelli and his predecessor were both vehemently anti-Nazi from the 1920s onward and were seen as enemies by the Nazis as a result, (ii) once the Nazis came to power, Pacelli and Pius XI were among many (the German conservatives, Stalin, Chamberlain) who thought Hitler could be constrained by agreements, so chose the Concordat as the best of an array of bad options, (iii) when it became clear that this was a failed policy, they switched to an approach of thinly veiled outward neutrality while working behind the scenes with both the Allies and the German resistance to see Hitler overthrown and/or assassinated. To call that "accommodation and acquiescence" is a bizarre distortion of history. They sought to have Hitler killed. That's about as anti-Nazi as you can get.

Yes, but instructing German bishops to more or less (almost) as much as support the nazis (if correct, and I am relying on wiki, and you did not tell me that what I said was incorrect) is not about as anti-Nazi as you can get. The dissenting German Bishops were perhaps as anti-Nazi as you could get, but Pacelli apparently silenced them.

The word nuance does not appear to be sufficiently woven into in your lexicon here Tim. It's not there for your 'church had no problem with medieval science' thing either. If, as seems to be the case, the church merely had 'no problem' until the 'science' came up against the theological dogma, if they had a list of banned books, and so on and so forth....you seem to be whitewashing a bit. We can all agree that the church-bashing has been overstated, including the making of incorrect claims on the part of some atheists, but you appear to be risking going too far the other way, imo. The medieval church's attitude to what we might call 'free enquiry' still appears to need a few more quite significant qualifiers than you are giving it.

 

[Tim ONeill]

Yes, but instructing German bishops to more or less (almost) as much as support the nazis (if correct, and I am relying on wiki, and you did not tell me that what I said was incorrect) is not about as anti-Nazi as you can get. The dissenting German Bishops were perhaps as anti-Nazi as you could get, but Pacelli apparently silenced them.

Relying on Wiki is usually a pretty bad idea. The Concordat said that clergy would not be active in politics - i.e. would not be active members of political parties or endorse particular parties or political policies from the pulpit in the name of the Church. But this did not "silence" the clergy - much to the Nazis' disgust. The bishops were still encouraged to speak out on matters of morality, which they did; becoming among the most outspoken critics of the regime. This is why Hitler rode roughshod over the Concordat, because he considered that the Papacy was violating it by encouraging criticism of the Nazi regime. I explain all of this in my article, in the section entitled "The Church and the Reich from 1933". So, again, I wonder if you actually read it.

The word nuance does not appear to be sufficiently woven into in your lexicon here Tim.

Nonsense. I try to present the history of what happened and why as fairly as possible. I think what you're objecting to is that this doesn't fit neatly with your emotional desire to find more to condemn the Church for. Check your emotions.

It's not there for your 'church had no problem with medieval science' thing either. If, as seems to be the case, the church merely had 'no problem' until the 'science' came up against the theological dogma, if they had a list of banned books, and so on and so forth....you seem to be whitewashing a bit.

No, but - again - you seem to be objecting to the fact that the actual history doesn't conform closely enough to your prejudices. As I keep noting, the science came up against theological dogma in precisely one case - the Galileo Affair. And that was complex, highly exceptional, deeply political and not some black and white "science vs faith" conflict.

The medieval church's attitude to what we might call 'free enquiry' still appears to need a few more quite significant qualifiers than you are giving it.

How? On religion? Sure - but I've already noted that, on matters of theology, the medieval Church was something close to ISIS. On science though (or the proto-science of the time)? There were no such issues. This is why for 35 years I've been asking people whose emotional biases make them desperately want this to be true to give me examples from the medieval period (500-1500 AD). So far the total they have been able to produce is ... zero.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I tend to take a more general view when it comes to Christianity and Fascism in Europe. My bias against religious woo I acknowledge. My take begins by recognizing that all the nations of Europe at the time were christian nations. I doubt there were very many persons who were not baptized in the name of christ, save jews and other minor players. So where did Nazism and Fascism come from?

And we can ask the same question about Russia. Was not Russia a christian nation as well? How did the murderous gangsterism that was Stalinism arise if not from within christian practice? Who were the Nazis? Where did their genocide find its roots?

My view is that all these oppressive totalitarian experiences were a natural outgrowth of christianity. Would anyone argue that? Or one could argue that christianity is a natural fit for totalitarianism and oppression, and hence there was never any real change when nazism, fascism and stalinism appeared.

 

[PyramidHead]

I tend to take a more general view when it comes to Christianity and Fascism in Europe. My bias against religious woo I acknowledge. My take begins by recognizing that all the nations of Europe at the time were christian nations. I doubt there were very many persons who were not baptized in the name of christ, save jews and other minor players. So where did Nazism and Fascism come from?

And we can ask the same question about Russia. Was not Russia a christian nation as well? How did the murderous gangsterism that was Stalinism arise if not from within christian practice? Who were the Nazis? Where did their genocide find its roots?

My view is that all these oppressive totalitarian experiences were a natural outgrowth of christianity. Would anyone argue that? Or one could argue that christianity is a natural fit for totalitarianism and oppression, and hence there was never any real change when nazism, fascism and stalinism appeared.

This is just word pudding, man. History isn't just random things happening for no reason, guided by grand ideas like 'totalitarianism' that magically compel people to do things.

 

[ruby sparks]

. I think what you're objecting to is that this doesn't fit neatly with your emotional desire to find more to condemn the Church for. Check your emotions.

Hm.

It’s precisely that sort of unfounded assumption on your part about who you’re discussing with and what their views are that makes me worry about your impartiality.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think what you're objecting to is that this doesn't fit neatly with your emotional desire to find more to condemn the Church for. Check your emotions.

Hm.

It’s precisely that sort of unfounded assumption on your part about who you’re discussing with and what their views are that makes me worry about your motivations and your impartiality.

Watch out that you’re not tilting over-enthusiastically at windmills to some extent.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I tend to take a more general view when it comes to Christianity and Fascism in Europe. My bias against religious woo I acknowledge. My take begins by recognizing that all the nations of Europe at the time were christian nations. I doubt there were very many persons who were not baptized in the name of christ, save jews and other minor players. So where did Nazism and Fascism come from?

And we can ask the same question about Russia. Was not Russia a christian nation as well? How did the murderous gangsterism that was Stalinism arise if not from within christian practice? Who were the Nazis? Where did their genocide find its roots?

My view is that all these oppressive totalitarian experiences were a natural outgrowth of christianity. Would anyone argue that? Or one could argue that christianity is a natural fit for totalitarianism and oppression, and hence there was never any real change when nazism, fascism and stalinism appeared.

This is just word pudding, man. History isn't just random things happening for no reason, guided by grand ideas like 'totalitarianism' that magically compel people to do things.

We seem to be in agreement then because I'm also asserting that "History isn't just random things happening for no reason..." This is why I said that the Nazi experience didn't just drop out of the sky, it had roots. My take is that it's roots were christian authoritarianism and terror. Christian Europe had been bludgeoning itself for centuries so my view is not so very radical.

 

[Tim ONeill]

I think what you're objecting to is that this doesn't fit neatly with your emotional desire to find more to condemn the Church for. Check your emotions.

Hm.

It’s precisely that sort of unfounded assumption on your part about who you’re discussing with and what their views are that makes me worry about your motivations and your impartiality.

Watch out that you’re not tilting over-enthusiastically at windmills to some extent.

It's not "unfounded". You keep saying things on the topic that I address in detail in the article you claim to be commenting on. And you're doing this via some stuff you've read ... on Wiki. This is pretty clear indication that you're working hard to prop up your biases. And since people tend not to recognise their biases, it's hardly surprising you don't see it that way.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think what you're objecting to is that this doesn't fit neatly with your emotional desire to find more to condemn the Church for. Check your emotions.

Hm.

It’s precisely that sort of unfounded assumption on your part about who you’re discussing with and what their views are that makes me worry about your motivations and your impartiality.

Watch out that you’re not tilting over-enthusiastically at windmills to some extent.

It seems to me that his 'over enthusiasm' is fairly evident... leading to his holding mutually contradictory positions.

On the one hand he states that the church had no problem with someone holding the scientific study and position of a heliocentric system.

On the other hand he acknowledges that the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be a heresy.

In an attempt to accommodate these contradictory positions, he euphemistically calls the church's insistence on a geocentric universe a 'biblical interpretation', so theology. This allows him to claim that Galileo in advocating heliocentrism (which he has declared the Church has no problem) to be discussing theological matters so heretical.

This seems to be nothing more than Inquisition apologetics, not reason.

 

[Tim ONeill]

It seems to me that his 'over enthusiasm' is fairly evident... leading to his holding mutually contradictory positions.

On the one hand he states that the church had no problem with someone holding the scientific study and position of a heliocentric system.

On the other hand he acknowledges that the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be a heresy.

I have repeatedly explained, in some detail, how and why the Galileo Affair is an exception to what I'm saying. Do you really not understand what I've said on this?

In an attempt to accommodate these contradictory positions, he euphemistically calls the church's insistence on a geocentric universe a 'biblical interpretation, so theology. This allows him to claim that Galileo in advocating heliocentrism (which he has declared the Church has no problem) to be discussing theological matters so heretical.

Forget my last question above: those last statements answer it. You genuinely are not following what I'm saying at all. No, that is not remotely close to anything I've said. Try again.