philosophical book about God/religion for guy suffering existential angst and fear about afterlife possibility

[polishgenius]

And also, you seem to accidentally make a confession here. You say he wasn't banned purely because 'science bad'. Wouldn't that suggest you believe the Church partly called him a heretic and banned his book because, as you put it, 'science bad'?

It would be an accidental confession if I'd ever professed the view that the church was an unalloyed champion of science. I actually came into this topic a whole lot closer to your point of view than I am now, due to never having read around the subject, and being aware that the Church has indeed been a tool and champion of oppression that has held back progress in some times and some ways and continues to. It is, however, nowhere near as clear-cut as you've been making it out to be, and certainly wasn't in Galileos time.

In terms of specifically that, I'm certain that some actors in the situation were pushing the ban because they were scared of the new ideas. However it seems very likely (and if I can I'll do more reading on this and solidify my view- money prohibits at the moment, but this subject is of interest to me and I'll certainly pick up books on it) from the evidence I see casually looking around that it wasn't the dominant reason.

[SomeDeadMan]

You missed the part where I pointed out my education? Of course you did, you're an ignoramus. You didn't read the first link I gave? With literary references? From scientists studying this very issue? Of course you didn't, you're an ignoramus.

You have shown to have at best a very shallow grasp of this period, and no bluster can hide the fact. Saying, again and again that you have stated your case when your case isn't supported by anything other than a document you don't understand is stupid. Other sources you have not presented.

I do understand that it's hard to admit you're clueless, but believe me: continue stating that your source-free arguing holds up against the researchers of history of science is indeed worse. If this level of understanding is what underpins your Dawkins reccomendation, then woe on Dawkins.

Kk.

Anyway, like I said, I've conceded the whole argument to him. But should you ever pick up a mainstream book or textbook about the Galileo affair, give it a read. See whose argument it holds. See who's making the commonly accepted argument.

But hey. Maybe he has some special knowledge. He has a history degree (there, mentioned your education)!

[Rorshach]

It would be an accidental confession if I'd ever professed the view that the church was an unalloyed champion of science. I actually came into this topic a whole lot closer to your point of view than I am now, due to never having read around the subject, and being aware that the Church has indeed been a tool and champion of oppression that has held back progress in some times and some ways and continues to. It is, however, nowhere near as clear-cut as you've been making it out to be, and certainly wasn't in Galileos time.

In terms of specifically that, I'm certain that some actors in the situation were pushing the ban because they were scared of the new ideas. However it seems very likely (and if I can I'll do more reading on this and solidify my view- money prohibits at the moment, but this subject is of interest to me and I'll certainly pick up books on it) from the evidence I see casually looking around that it wasn't the dominant reason.

Given the money (same for me, btw), I'd reccomend Tim O'Neills bibliography. The Numbers book at the top is probably the best place to start.

[Rorshach]

Kk.

Anyway, like I said, I've conceded the whole argument to him. But should you ever pick up a mainstream book or textbook about the Galileo affair, give it a read. See whose argument it holds. See who's making the commonly accepted argument.

But hey. Maybe he has some special knowledge. He has a history degree!

Follow your own advice, would you? Would go a long way to make you less clueless and possibly less obnoxious about it.

[Sci-2]

Anyway, for the atheists (or agnostics) out there, what books were influential in your being comfortable with your loss of faith? I lost my faith around 7th grade and was pretty horrified by it. I was ashamed that i couldn't believe, when everyone that I had ever met had faith. I tried reading the Bible over and over again, to no avail. The idea of being an atheist or thinking that maybe I wasn't completely wrong didn't occur to me, because not believing was just bad.

I think the idea that faith or disbelief was virtuous was something I abandoned in my late teens?

I swung between atheist, misotheist, theist, and a few other -ists and -isms before landed at agnosticism. I don't believe any particular book really influenced me. Most of the stupidity that can come out of religion - homophobia, caste system, etc - was self-apparent though over time I stopped seeing all religious belief as the problem.

The cultural aspects of religion are fascinating to me, but I prefer standing on a cliff listening to the ocean crashing against stone to any sermon.

[SomeDeadMan]

It would be an accidental confession if I'd ever professed the view that the church was an unalloyed champion of science. I actually came into this topic a whole lot closer to your point of view than I am now, due to never having read around the subject, and being aware that the Church has indeed been a tool and champion of oppression that has held back progress in some times and some ways and continues to. It is, however, nowhere near as clear-cut as you've been making it out to be, and certainly wasn't in Galileos time.

In terms of specifically that, I'm certain that some actors in the situation were pushing the ban because they were scared of the new ideas. However it seems very likely (and if I can I'll do more reading on this and solidify my view- money prohibits at the moment, but this subject is of interest to me and I'll certainly pick up books on it) from the evidence I see casually looking around that it wasn't the dominant reason.

But that's always been my point. I'm confused as to where you disagree with me. Do you to hold that Galileo brought it upon himself? Actually, a better question, do you find this a fitting allegory:

Basically, it's like this: I claim that .. dunno .. Uranus is inhabited by intelligent creatures. You point out that we don't know that, and for me to present it as fact is .. strange. I throw a hissy fit and continue my claim. Some 100 years from now, we can prove my point, even though I can't today. Should we look at you as an idiot who didn't see it 100 years prior? Because that's basically your positon.

I know you're Catholic, but surely you will not try and whitewash the Galileo affair, as Rorshach has attempted.

[Rorshach]

But that's always been my point. I'm confused as to where you disagree with me. Do you to hold that Galileo brought it upon himself? Actually, a better question, do you find this a fitting allegory:

I know you're Catholic, but surely you will not try and whitewash the Galileo affair, as Rorshach has attempted.

I haven't. I've pointed out that you know nothing, and your proclamations are uninteresting, as you don't understand the content or the time it was made, or what it relates to. None of that is in question.

Now, please point me to the part where it would be logical for the Church to take Galileo's theory as fact (ignoring that he got it wrong, orbitally speaking.). What proof or good reason did he present that should convince them his theory was fact, as he taught.

[SomeDeadMan]

I haven't. I've pointed out that you know nothing, and your proclamations are uninteresting, as you don't understand the content or the time it was made, or what it relates to. None of that is in question.

Now, please point me to the part where it would be logical for the Church to take Galileo's theory as fact (ignoring that he got it wrong, orbitally speaking.). What proof or good reason did he present that should convince them his theory was fact, as he taught.

I don't know how much lower I can bow. I've already told you, I agree. It was best that he was locked up in his house and his books banned. I was foolish to doubt you. I don't know why you keep reasserting that you've showed me I know nothing, I've already accepted that. As you've shown us all, Galileo was never even convicted of heresy! I've got it all wrong! No need to repeatedly embarrass me in such a way. I've been a fool. I recent.

[Rorshach]

I don't know how much lower I can bow. I've already told you, I agree. It was best that he was locked up in his house and his books banned. I was foolish to doubt you. I don't know why you keep reasserting that you've showed me I know nothing, I've already accepted that. As you've shown us all, Galileo was never even convicted of heresy! I've got it all wrong! No need to repeatedly embarrass me in such a way. I've been a fool. I recent.

Read what I write. This crap post just underlines that you haven't. Start at the beginning, and no skipping, lazy boy.

I'm serious. I've pointed out the best knowledge, and you haven't read it. Or, if you have, you haven't understood it. So start over. Tell me why the analogy is wrong. Tell me what Galileo argued. Tell me why he was wrong. Tell me his proofs. Show some effort!

[SomeDeadMan]

Read what I write. This crap post just underlines that you haven't. Start at the beginning, and no skipping, lazy boy.

I'm serious. I've pointed out the best knowledge, and you haven't read it. Or, if you have, you haven't understood it. So start over. Tell me why the analogy is wrong. Tell me what Galileo argued. Tell me why he was wrong. Tell me his proofs. Show some effort!

Haha. When will this inquisition end! My back is bloody. I Recant, I RECANT! Please, make it stop.

[Rorshach]

Haha. When will this inquisition end! My back is bloody. I Recant, I RECANT! Please, make it stop.

So, again: why argue a point you know fuck all about? 'cause I'm left with the alternatives ignoramus or troll.

ETA; nah, you're no troll. You're just scared of knowledge. Fuck off and read, small change. You're way out of your league, and the only argument you have left is sarcasm. Not that you had any to begin with, though.

[SomeDeadMan]

So, again: why argue a point you know fuck all about? 'cause I'm left with the alternatives ignoramus or troll.

ETA; nah, you're no troll. You're just scared of knowledge. Fuck off and read, small change. You're way out of your league, and the only argument you have left is sarcasm. Not that you had any to begin with, though.

Whichever you prefer. Banish me to my house.

And by that, I of course mean, be kind enough to grant me the mercy to recant on my heretical words and allow me the dignity to enjoy the inner walls of my house for the rest of my life.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

:shocked:

[polishgenius]

But that's always been my point. I'm confused as to where you disagree with me. Do you to hold that Galileo brought it upon himself? Actually, a better question, do you find this a fitting allegory:

I know you're Catholic, but surely you will not try and whitewash the Galileo affair, as Rorshach has attempted.

It's not a fitting allegory because he wasn't making a completely baseless claim, and he was finding evidence that supported his views, even if it didn't amount to proof and the theory still had holes.

While hyperbolic, though, it does highlight one of the points in all this: that while it's easy for us now to say that Galileo was right on the Earth going round the sun, at the time his evidence wasn't watertight. And as Rorsach pointed out, in certain instances he was drawing right conclusions from wrong evidence. Or possibly making up wrong evidence in an attempt to provide further support for a theory we now know but didn't then was, mostly, right.

Do I think that Galileo brought it upon himself? That seems to be a loaded question designed for an easy answer that doesn't exist. I don't think that censorship is ever okay. He did, however, behave in a manner that made the censorship far more likely when he had previously had supporters within the church.

As for where I disagree with you: you brought up Galileo in the first place to support the position that the church will state its scientific views as absolute fact until the evidence against is absolutely unassailable, and has always done this. Despite evidence suggesting that even while censoring Galileo they were open to being proven wrong (and I know Rorshach has been derogatory towards you, but that doesn't invalidate the evidence he's presented - several of the historians in the bibliography of the answer he originally linked to seem very well respected), I haven't seen much from you to suggest you've modulated your position at all.

Eta: some clarity.

[Westfold-II]

Let's not forget that, after all, he was convicted on the authority of the church because of his views, and that worse could have happened if he had not repented. Also, this historical account is hardly justified and qualified to downplay and relativize Galileo's very influential method the way it does. It also does not and probably cannot discuss all arguments or points made. Consider for example rhetorical statements like this: "Galileo added to this debate via his observations using his telescope, particularly by his work on how the phases of Venus supported heliocentrism, but he did not "prove" heliocentrism at all."

So Galileo just didn't know his stuff.. I think that's beside the point and probably unjustified. At least it is given a very relativizing bent in the debate here.

[polishgenius]

So Galileo just didn't know his stuff.. I think that's beside the point and probably unjustified.

I don't see how the statement you quoted can be in any way claimed to be suggesting that Galileo just didn't know his stuff. All it says is that Galileo never proved that the Earth goes round the sun, though he added to the body of evidence that in the end was used to do so.

[Rorshach]

Let's not forget that, after all, he was convicted on the authority of the church because of his views, and that worse could have happened if he had not repented. Also, this historical account is hardly justified and qualified to downplay and relativize Galileo's very influential method the way it does. It also does not and probably cannot discuss all arguments or points made. Consider for example rhetorical statements like this: "Galileo added to this debate via his observations using his telescope, particularly by his work on how the phases of Venus supported heliocentrism, but he did not "prove" heliocentrism at all."

So Galileo just didn't know his stuff.. I think that's beside the point and probably unjustified. At least it is given a very relativizing bent in the debate here.

Two points in relation to this and a question in relation to this:

Point 1) I've said this a couple of times, but in relation to the document SDM thinks explains everything here, the one about "absurd in philosophy and formally heretic" (exact wording uninteresting for the point), he didn't repent or retract or .. well, anything. Look at the date: 1616. Are you aware of Galileo being put into house arrest in 1616? Because that would be news. And it would be nice to see someone backing up SDMs claim that any books of Galileo were cencored at this date.

Point 2) What was decided in 1616, was that, not unreasonable at all, Galileo should stop treating heliocentrism as fact, because that position was scientifically untenable. There were few points in favour, and quite a lot going against it. Galileo, and a couple of others, had observed the phases of Venus, and that disproved the Ptolemaic system, but not the favoured Tychonic system. Also, Galileo (a whole day ahead of another observer, Simon Marius), observed that Jupiter had moons, which again was devastation for the Aristotelian view where everything moves around the Earth. However, it doesn't amont to a proof against most of the systems in play at the time. Also, Galileo (together with three others, though some of it unpublished) observed sunspots. That you take from the O'Neill answer that Galileo didn't know his stuff is .. odd, as it is not in dispute that he observed these events. However he was never the only one (going against his claim to be unique), and none of these prove heliocentrism.

You see, there were problems with the heliocentric position, which Galileo couldn't counter. See here, part 2, for a quick rundown (but read the whole thing, as it's enlightening for most). And Galileo did know these problems. He had also tried to observe a parallax, and failed. So he relied on his argument that the tides prove heliocentrism.

And the question: what do you mean with "Galileos very influential method"?

[Sci-2]

There's some interesting posts by Feser on Intelligent Design vs what he calls "Aristotelico-Thomism".

I've just started these today, so I can't really say much about them but I think they might be of interest.

[Wise Fool]

Well I'm glad we finally got to the crux of it. The guru has proved that Galileo actually was never convicted of heresy, and he lived a pleasant life, uninterrupted by the Church, except that troublesome year when they were a wee bit heavy handed - although understandably! And it was totally cool anyways, Galileo was just a big drama queen, guyz. Amen.

Haha, I love that. I call you dull, and you tell me this equates to me calling the truth dull. 'Cause you know, you = the one truth. I better be careful, before I get an interdict on me and an order of house arrest.

In fact, I'll be even clearer, inquisitor. I concede the argument. I bow to your superior knowledge. Galileo was NOT convicted of heresy by the Catholic Church; the problem was simply that he just kept trying to force people into believing his theory, and they wanted to protect the people from being misled by such a charlatan. That was all. He was never ill-treated, I mean they were a bit heavy handed, but it was understandable. What else is there? Oh. It was all Galileo's fault, the house arrest thing. He kept insulting the pope in such an unfair way as to make it impossible not to take action against him. The Holy See is the real victim here.

I don't know how much lower I can bow. I've already told you, I agree. It was best that he was locked up in his house and his books banned. I was foolish to doubt you. I don't know why you keep reasserting that you've showed me I know nothing, I've already accepted that. As you've shown us all, Galileo was never even convicted of heresy! I've got it all wrong! No need to repeatedly embarrass me in such a way. I've been a fool. I recent.

Haha. When will this inquisition end! My back is bloody. I Recant, I RECANT! Please, make it stop.

Whichever you prefer. Banish me to my house.

And by that, I of course mean, be kind enough to grant me the mercy to recant on my heretical words and allow me the dignity to enjoy the inner walls of my house for the rest of my life.

Wow, someone's a pyromaniac around straw men.

The authorities might also want to warn the dead horses about a crazed assaulter on the prowl.

[sologdin]

that may make a nice fantasy setting, wherein brave hero must battle to the death red herrings, strawpersons, dead horses, true scotsmen, two-horned monsters, evil circles, cherrypickers, samuel johnson, and hitler.