![\"Bellarmine\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/10\/Bellarmine.png\")
<\/a><\/div>\nThis exchange occurred in the combox (beginning with Jon\u2019s first comment) for the related paper, \u201cNo One\u2019s Perfect\u201d: Scientific Errors of Galileo and 16th-17th Century Cosmologies Rescued From Obscurity<\/a>. I felt that eventually the dialogue broke down into dialogue-killing wrangling about style, methodology, and minutiae, and so will omit those latter portions of the discussion from this new paper, to save readers from all that tedium. Anyone can read the whole thing in the combox if they wish. I\u2019m not gonna change anything there. It is what it is. But editing is highly important in all good writing.<\/p>\n Jon, at length, ended it by stating, \u201cwe\u2019re just not able to communicate.\u201d That indeed seems to be the case, seeing how the debate ended up (spinning wheels in the mud, so to speak; both parties talking past each other). For my part, I freely and repeatedly admitted (after Jon complained) that I did go a bit overboard:<\/p>\n . . . one can always be more charitable, sure; of course. I am passionate about argument, I love it, and so I can get carried away at times. Some of it comes from frustration, if I feel I am repeating myself and it\u2019s not getting through. But I am always disagreeing with arguments without trying to insult people. Sometimes the line can be fine, granted. And people have different sensitivities.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n But I\u2019m a \u201cbulldog\u201d in argument; there is no doubt about that. This offends some people. Different strokes for different folks. It may offend you. But I will basically be the way I am. I can\u2019t somehow not be passionate about ideas. It\u2019s just how I am. You have met me in person so I think you understand this at least to some degree. I have to be accepted for who I am, just as I try to do the same with you and everyone else. So I plead guilty as charged to excessive polemics and rhetoric . . . (8-6-10)<\/p>\n I\u2019ve admitted polemical excess. I\u2019m not perfect. Never claimed to be. My points about the actual arguments back and forth still stand, regardless of how poorly I may have conducted myself, in your eyes. Like you say, there are facts in play here that need to be dealt with. (8-6-10)<\/p>\n I am happy to take my share of the blame. If I had any idea we\u2019d be in this present rut I would have tried my utmost to temper my usual enthusiastic passion for debate and used less strong language (that seems to have set you off down this path). (8-6-10)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But my genuine love of ideas and debate and aggressive style and sometimes over-the-top rhetoric or polemics are by\u00a0no<\/span>\u00a0means the\u00a0entire<\/span>\u00a0reason why it ended as it did. There are logical and linguistic and historical issues in play, too. I exasperated Jon but (from where I sit) he also frustrated me to no end by not dealing with all of my arguments and at the end deciding to talk subjectively about the\u00a0discussion<\/span>\u00a0and stylistic issues rather than about Galileo and the substantive theological and philosophical matters. I stated: \u201cI thought the dialogue started out well, and I was enjoying it back when we were actually discussing the issue\u201d and referred to \u201cthe initial fun and stimulation of this dialogue.\u201d Readers may judge. I present the dialogue, as always (i.e., minus the drudgery at the end), for the purpose of allowing open-minded thinkers to read both sides of a dispute and make up their own minds where the actual truth lies.<\/p>\n Jon\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n I don\u2019t see the relevance of showing that Galileo and others made mistakes. What do you expect of 17th century scientists? None of this absolves Rome though. I have a brief description of the relevant facts, often obscured by RC apologists,<\/span>\u00a0at the following link<\/a>.<\/p>\n I\u2019ll take a look at your paper as soon as I can set aside a chunk of time. Thanks for alerting me to it.<\/p>\n The point is not\u00a0merely<\/i>\u00a0to note that scientists make mistakes (a thing anyone with a lick of sense knows) \u2014 as if that is some big revelation [no pun intended] \u2013, but rather, that Christians are not the\u00a0only<\/span>\u00a0ones who make mistakes (specifically with the Galileo incident in mind) and that there are many aspects to the Galileo affair that many are unaware of.<\/p>\n In other words, this is an exercise of pointing out double standards of presentation, by presenting (fairly) certain facts of history. Catholics got some things wrong in 17th century cosmology? So did everyone else, etc. So why are\u00a0we<\/span>\u00a0always discussed, and all this\u00a0other<\/span>\u00a0stuff ignored and unknown?<\/p>\n That<\/span>\u00a0is my point, that I already expressed in the paper, so that there shouldn\u2019t be any mystery here as to what I think I am accomplishing by this post.<\/p>\n [from his linked paper]\u00a0in this instance the church opposed demonstrable science because of their understanding of the Bible. This is an excellent example of some of the problems with religious thinking.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n There\u2019s nothing in this paper that I haven\u2019t already dealt with in my several papers on Galileo.<\/p>\n To generalize from one instance where mistakes were made, to \u201creligious thinking\u201d is absurd. So one (non-infallible, non-magisterial) Catholic tribunal got it wrong. Why should it be such a big deal? Someone noted that this actually proves the fact that the Church is not opposed to science [originally, erroneously, \u201cargument\u201d]: since Galileo is the one \u201cstock argument\u201d trotted out\u00a0ad nauseum<\/i>\u00a0(just as Popes Honorius, Vigilius, and Liberius are always trotted out to supposedly disprove papal infallibility).<\/p>\n Jon wouldn\u2019t argue that Communism, Stalinism, Maoism, Naziism, eugenics, phrenology, astrology, alchemy, sterilization of black men, Piltdown and Nebraska Man, etc., were all indicative of \u201cproblems with atheist thinking\u201d [so] that he has to waste time defending atheists against these charges, as if such a broad generalization can be made in the first place . . .<\/p>\n The overall historical picture has to be taken into account. It is for this reason that I am currently at work on my big project of \u201cChristianity and Science\u201d: to smash the prevalent myths, caricatures, half truths, outright lies and propaganda (Hitchens, Dawkins et al), and straw men.<\/p>\n [replying to a separate comment from someone else] And, as Thomas Kuhn and others have stated, St. Robert Bellarmine actually had the more sophisticated, \u201cmodern\u201d conception of what scientific theory and hypothesis are: not dogmas, but provisional, and never absolutely proven. Hence, Newton could be overthrown by Einstein and Planck and Heisenberg, etc. Bellarmine didn\u2019t consider heliocentrism proven beyond all doubt, and in that respect he was right. It was not solidly established, based on experiment, till the early 1800s. But ol\u2019 Galileo thought it\u00a0was<\/span>, based on his erroneous view of tides.<\/p>\n In essence, then, it is a case where one non-magisterial tribunal of the Church was wrong about astronomy for (partially) the right reasons, and Galileo was partially right about astronomy for (partially) the wrong reasons.<\/p>\n We openly admit the mistakes we made, whereas the ones who want to keep throwing Galileo in our faces don\u2019t seem willing to consider the larger picture and aspects where Galileo got it wrong (beyond just an arrogant attitude: to actual scientific facts).<\/p>\n So it is a double standard in the initial judgment, and a double standard in who is willing to honestly admit what real mistakes were made (as opposed to mythical fictions and legends that supposedly occurred).<\/p>\n The reason it\u2019s a big deal is this. The RCC claims to be God\u2019s representation on earth.<\/span><\/p>\n Oh my; this [i.e., his entire comment of the next several paragraphs] is a goldmine of logical fallacy and muddleheaded thinking. Here we go! So far so good; though we don\u2019t make Christianity or saving faith exclusive to our ranks.<\/p>\n Failing to be subservient to that authority was done on pain of imprisonment (in Galileo\u2019s case house arrest) or death.<\/span><\/p>\n Infallibility and the obedience of professed Catholics to the Church are two different things. The Church had the right and prerogative to penalize someone who wanted to, in effect, speak for the Church and impose dogmas onto the Church that were not yet proven even in scientific terms.<\/p>\n \u201cDeath\u201d is merely a melodramatic flourish and can therefore be dismissed as a\u00a0non sequitur<\/span>.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t understand what you are saying. A non-sequitur is a claim that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. What are the premises and what is the conclusion I\u2019m drawing that doesn\u2019t follow?<\/span> As I said in response a non-sequitur is a particular thing, and I want you to show how it applies to my claim. Don\u2019t just make assertions of the commission of fallacies. Do the work and show what is a fallacy.<\/span><\/p>\n Galileo\u2019s mild treatment after his house arrest (living in luxurious palaces, etc., and not prevented to do any of his scientific experiments) shows that the death penalty was hardly in play. So I have already answered by documenting\u00a0that<\/span>\u00a0[elsewhere in the dialogue]. Therefore, to throw out the likelihood of his being executed is indeed a\u00a0non sequitur<\/i>. It was a melodramatic flourish rather than a serious argument based on the events of the time. That one word of yours contained a whole world of hostile, polemical assumptions and contra-Catholic stereotypes. And it is by no means the only instance of that in your arguments.<\/p>\n You did not even attempt to justify your charge of non-sequitur, though the assertions that I\u2019m guilty of fallacies remain.<\/span><\/p>\n Now I have. You\u2019ll simply disagree, so what was accomplished?<\/p>\n Just looking at this exchange, can you understand the difficulty I\u2019m having responding to what you say? Your first reply is a vague claim regarding a fallacy. How am I supposed to reply to that? Where is the fallacy? Is Dave3 giving the answer? The death penalty wasn\u2019t in play in Galileo\u2019s case? Isn\u2019t that exactly what I initially said? The fact is I put that statement in parenthesis in hopes of preventing you from going down a rabbit trail as if I was suggesting that the death penalty was in play in this specific instance. It didn\u2019t even matter. You still attribute that view to me and accuse me of a fallacy to boot. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n And by the way an error in fact is not a fallacy. This is another problem that is exacerbating the communication barrier here. Your charge against me is a charge of a fallacy, but based on Dave3 it sounds like you\u2019re accusing me of an error (I think?). That\u2019s not the same thing as a fallacy. Take a look at the exchange here. A charge of non sequitur is a charge that I\u2019ve made an argument that draws a conclusion that doesn\u2019t follow from the premises. That\u2019s a pretty basic thing. So what would be helpful is if you listed the supposed premises that define my argument and then show how the conclusion violates the logical form.<\/span>\u00a0Or you could withdraw the charge of fallacy, which is what I think you should do.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cDeath\u201d was an exceedingly rare penalty (this is why I stated that your introducing this motif was \u201cmerely a melodramatic flourish.\u201d I misunderstood, thinking that you were implying that it was a possibility in\u00a0Galileo\u2019s<\/span>\u00a0case. But even though you weren\u2019t intending that meaning, it still qualifies, in my opinion, as a\u00a0non sequitur<\/span>\u00a0insofar as we were talking about Galileo and the aspect of infallibility.<\/p>\n Secondly, you neglected throughout your complaining about this assertion of mine to recognize that there is more than one meaning for\u00a0non sequitur<\/span>. There is the definition of a fallacy in logic (that you used), but there is also a more common, everyday usage (I never stated I was using the strict logical definition). For example, at\u00a0Dictionary.com<\/span>\u00a0(World English Dictionary<\/span><\/a>), the first definition is:<\/p>\n 1. a statement having little or no relevance to what preceded it<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Then your more specific definition is given second:<\/p>\n 2. logic a conclusion that does not follow from the premises<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I was using it in the first sense (bringing it up had no relevance to the discussion at hand). I would argue that this is made clear by context, and especially by my later clarification. But you were stuck on that one definition and hung up on it, and so missed the point. Likewise, the\u00a0Cultural Dictionary<\/span>\u00a0on the same page (as its\u00a0only<\/span>\u00a0definition), states:<\/p>\n A thought that does not logically follow what has just been said: \u201cWe had been discussing plumbing, so her remark about astrology was a real non sequitur.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Merriam-Webster<\/span>\u00a0online<\/a>\u00a0does exactly the same. It gives the logical definition first, then the one I used:<\/p>\n a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As for the house arrest, I noted the nature of it in my most recent paper on Galileo:<\/p>\n In 1633 Galileo was \u2018incarcerated\u2019 in the palace of one Niccolini, the ambassador to the Vatican from Tuscany, who admired Galileo. He spent five months with Archbishop Piccolomini in Siena, and then lived in comfortable environments with friends for the rest of his life (although technically under \u2018house arrest\u2019). No evidence exists to prove that he was ever subjected to torture or even discomfort until his death nine years later.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, that was logical. If the RCC is God\u2019s spokesperson and God is telling you one thing and you are affirming another, then you are defying God.<\/span><\/p>\n No; you are defying the Church, which speaks for God on this earth; it doesn\u2019t follow that the Church never makes mistakes, as it did here. We claim different levels of authority for different things.<\/p>\n The Church had authority in the way that a parent has authority over a five-year-old child. Does that mean that parents are always, absolutely right in every instance of punishment or correction? No. Does it mean, then, that they should not have authority and that the child should not obey? No.<\/p>\n That\u2019s why pain is warranted. We can\u2019t have people defying God\u2019s statements.<\/span><\/p>\n I have explained it in logical, rational terms. You are the one trying to caricature what happened, according to the usual stereotypes of skeptics who have used this incident for almost four centuries to mean far more than what it actually meant.<\/p>\n Well, the RCC wasn\u2019t magisterial and infallible in this instance you say. I think reasonable people can see this as excuses. I mean, imagine you hire a guide to take you on a trip and he says that his guidance is infallible. You come to a fork in the road and you go left on his advice and find yourself at a dead end. As you retrace your steps your guide says \u201cWell, my advice to go left was only being offered in my unofficial capacity.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Or you have a doctor that claims infallible powers and he issues prescriptions that lead to the death of his patients. \u201cBut I didn\u2019t sign my name in the special way and I didn\u2019t use the special paper. Those were my unofficial, non-magesterial pronouncements.\u201d Wouldn\u2019t we call this doctor a scam artist?<\/span><\/p>\n This is plain silly. It\u2019s not an excuse at all; it is simply what it is. The non-Catholic skeptic and critic doesn\u2019t determine the nature of Catholic belief with regard to infallibility;\u00a0we<\/i>\u00a0do that. Here is the logic of it: Catholic Church<\/b>: Our belief is that the Church possesses infallibility in carefully defined circumstances: when something that has long been widely believed and has strong support in Scripture and Tradition, in the area of faith and morals, is declared to be infallible, by a pope, or an ecumenical council in harmony with a pope.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Skeptic Caricaturist<\/b>: But I say that matters of science are included within the purview of infallibility!<\/p>\n Catholic Church<\/b>:<\/b>\u00a0That\u2019s irrelevant. You don\u2019t change the reality of what a thing is by desiring that it be something else. It\u2019s a straw man. The first rule of any sensible dialogue is to understand the position of one\u2019s opponent.<\/p>\n Skeptic Caricaturist<\/b>:<\/b>\u00a0But that is just a lame excuse, because you are embarrassed that the Galileo incident disproved the infallibility of the Church.<\/p>\n Catholic Church<\/b>:<\/b>\u00a0How can it do that, since it had nothing directly to do with either the faith or morals?<\/p>\n Yes it did. It had to do with the accuracy of Scripture as interpreted by the RCC. Interpretation of Scripture is a matter related to faith. It\u2019s fine to say the RCC is infallible only on matters of faith, but there are times when faith and science coincide. Science is nothing but a method of determining truth. If the truth is related to a Scriptural matter than faith and science will be interlinked. Saying that the RCC doesn\u2019t get necessarily get it right in such cases is simply saying that the RCC doesn\u2019t necessarily get it right in matters that can be checked. So why should we believe the RCC in matters that can\u2019t be checked? Jesus said that if you can\u2019t trust me on earthly matters, why should you trust me on heavenly matters. I agree.<\/span><\/p>\n Catholic Church<\/b>:<\/b>\u00a0The discussion of heliocentrism vs. geocentrism (with both being wrong insofar as the earth or sun is thought to be at the center of the universe) are particular astronomical theories. Whether one or the other is true does not affect the doctrine that God created everything in the universe. But in any event, it has no bearing whatever on infallibility since the subject matter is outside of faith and morals, and the erroneous proclamations about heliocentrism were made by neither a pope nor an ecumenical council.<\/p>\n There\u2019s only one distinction that makes sense with regards to infallibility. If it\u2019s offered in an official capacity it should be regarded as infallible. If not, then no.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, you exhibit the same foolish fallacy:<\/p>\n 1) Catholic Church says infallibility means X and is applied to particular situations Y and Z (the Galileo affair not being either Y or Z).<\/p>\n 2) Jon says no; infallibility actually means, or\u00a0should<\/i>\u00a0mean (because he\u00a0says<\/i>\u00a0so!) A, and\u00a0should<\/i>\u00a0be applied to the particular situation of the Galileo affair, which\u00a0he<\/i>\u00a0says is indeed within the category of Y and Z.<\/p>\n 3) So the Church says that the Galileo affair is not an instance of Y and Z, but Jon says it is. The two positions contradict each other.<\/p>\n 4) So who should reasonably determine where infallibility applies or doesn\u2019t apply?<\/p>\n 5) We say the Church obviously determines that, because it is the entity making the claim in the first place; therefore it is sensible that it defines the parameters of its own claimed authority.<\/p>\n 6) Jon says he knows better than the Church about its own level of authority. He says every \u201cofficial\u201d Church decree must also be infallible, because, well, because\u00a0he<\/i>\u00a0says so . . .<\/p>\n What I\u2019m doing is using induction. In order to spot a phony I use certain techniques. If the fraudulent doctor claims his infallible prescriptions are only infallible when he uses the special paper (after his patients have died) I recognize this as a shyster\u2019s method. He could respond as you do. \u201cBut Jon says that all prescriptions are infallible despite my own declaration that it only counts on special paper.\u201d Well, yeah, I suppose that\u2019s what he\u2019d say since he\u2019s been busted. What would you say to the doctor? If you treat him differently than the RCC ask yourself why.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n * * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Etc., etc. One either sees the self-evident illogical goofiness of such a position or they do not.<\/p>\n If \u201cThou art Peter\u201d means infallible guidance for Peter and his successors I can understand that it might not mean he\u2019s right in every action that he does. But he has to be right when he acts in his official capacity as a representative of Christ on earth, which is exactly what occurred in the case of Galileo.<\/span><\/p>\n No it ain\u2019t. The pope didn\u2019t even sign the decree. It was not an infallible statement. It wasn\u2019t made by a pope or an ecumenical council in line with one. It didn\u2019t have to do with faith and morals. There was simply a mistake made about the earth going around the sun. Big wow. Galileo made other mistakes, as I have documented, and was also over-dogmatic when he shouldn\u2019t have been, according to the parameters of proper science.<\/p>\n There are only going to be few cases where the erroneous nature of the claims of the faithful are so strikingly demonstrated.<\/span><\/p>\n I suppose so, since this Galileo incident is always bandied about, as if it proves anything. All it proves is that some folks in the Church were incorrect about geocentrism and about the supposed teaching of it in Scripture.<\/p>\n Today the RCC has learned the important lesson.<\/span><\/p>\n I think the lesson was learned that dogmatic pronouncements about science and the interpretation of Scripture are excessive, yes.<\/p>\n The difference is that our mistakes are discussed forever and caricatured and distorted, but mistakes of either Galileo or science in general through the centuries are glossed-over, ignored, and it is pretended that there is this huge qualitative difference between our mistake here and any of the others.<\/p>\n The Pope is regarded as a guide, but he doesn\u2019t act that way. He hangs back without leading at all on various questions until a consensus emerges and then he steps forward and pronounces the consensus correct.<\/span><\/p>\n For once you get something (partially) right (and you intend it to be a criticism LOL). That\u2019s exactly how infallibility works. This is why, e.g., the Immaculate Conception and infallibility of the pope was proclaimed in the 19th century, and the Assumption of Mary in the 20th. Lots of deliberation there. In the meantime, there is lots of guidance, even at a lower level of infallibility (what is called the ordinary magisterium).<\/p>\n This is not how a real guide acts, but is how a wise arbiter would act. Let the disputing parties fight it out until they\u2019ve exhausted themselves and come to conclusions themselves, then step forward and pronounce who\u2019s right.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, we have the ludicrous situation of you (who scarcely even comprehends infallibility and how it works in the Catholic Church) acting as if you understand it better than we do.<\/p>\n In a sense that\u2019s true. In the same way you might think that you understand better the workings of the chiropractor better than the committed acolyte. I don\u2019t mean it as a put down, but just to say that since obviously I think you\u2019re wrong about the RCC and infallibility I view you as more prone to accept their excuses and more blind to misleading nature of their rationalizations. Sometimes the outsider does see some aspects more clearly. That\u2019s true in any situation. Suppose someone you know has a family feud. You might be more objective in evaluating it, whereas parties to the conflict might say \u201cWhat do you know about it. I\u2019m in the middle of it. I know more.\u201d Maybe that\u2019s the very reason you can\u2019t evaluate it objectively.<\/span><\/p>\n Disagree if you must, but please do us the courtesy of at least attempting to correctly understand what our view is. As a former anti-Catholic Protestant, you obviously have a lot of that baggage left in your views.<\/p>\n So take evolution. The lesson of Galileo has been learned. The Pope isn\u2019t going to step up and tell us who\u2019s right, as you would think might be done of Christ really intended an infallible guide on the earth to resolve controversial disputes.<\/span><\/p>\n Evolution has nothing directly to do with the Catholic faith. It\u2019s like you want it both ways. You don\u2019t want the Church to proclaim about science, cuz it ain\u2019t her purview, yet on the other hand you do. Which is it?<\/p>\n I wish she would actually because it would expose the true nature of the church. Again, evolution is related to faith. Go to any Christian book store and you\u2019ll see. Origins of humanity are a matter of faith obviously. If we descended from ape like ancestors that is obviously relevant to God\u2019s attitude towards us.<\/span><\/p>\n If we proclaim and do so wrongly (even if sub-infallibly), then that is distorted and used as anti-Catholic and anti-Christian propaganda for 400 years. If we don\u2019t, then you go after infallibility, as if that has anything to do with matters of science.<\/p>\n Popes have, in fact, made statements about precisely those areas where evolution might intersect with Christian theology: in\u00a0Humani Generis<\/i>\u00a0in 1950, Pope Pius XII stated that Catholics must believe in a primal human pair, and that God creates every individual soul. Beyond that we have the perfect freedom to believe in evolution (which doesn\u2019t disprove God\u2019s existence in the slightest). St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both adhered to views that at the very least left open the possibility of transformationism.<\/p>\n He\u2019s going to hang back until everyone\u2019s pretty much on the same page. Maybe a few stragglers that don\u2019t have sufficient influence. Then he\u2019ll let us know the answer. He says nothing because he\u2019s not really a leader and doesn\u2019t even believe in his own infallibility.<\/span><\/p>\n A classic case study in relentless\u00a0non sequitur<\/i>\u00a0. . . C\u2019mon Jon. I know you can make a better argument than this (and I mean that as a compliment, not a put-down). You can do better. This is simply a poor, weak, fallacious argument on many levels.<\/p>\n How so? It\u2019s an inductive argument. People that genuinely believe they are right and don\u2019t make mistakes act in certain ways, and those ways seem very inconsistent, if not the opposite, of the way Popes, protected with the charism of infallibility act. Of course the Pope\u2019s supposed gifts are slightly different, but there are still points of similarity. To evaluate how we should expect the Pope to act we can do nothing but consider analogous cases and contrast with the Pope\u2019s behavior. That\u2019s what I\u2019m doing. It\u2019s not a deductive argument, so I\u2019m not pretending that the conclusions follow with necessity.<\/span><\/p>\n We are at an impasse, then, because you are denying that a=a (Catholic infallibility [i.e., our conception of what we mean by it and when it applies] is what it is). Since you have redefined Catholic notions at your whim and fancy, you\u2019re fighting a straw man, and there is nowhere else to go with this. I can\u2019t defend a phantom of your making. What I\u2019m defending is the Catholic conception of infallibility.<\/p>\n We\u2019re not discussing infallibility per se, but rather, whether the particular of the Galileo fiasco is related to it.<\/p>\n If we claimed to be infallible concerning absolutely everything, then your argument would have some force, but since we don\u2019t, it has to be determined if the Galileo affair is within the purview of infallibility or not. It certainly is not (clearly so), yet you want it to be so badly (for polemical purposes), that you simply pretend that it is.<\/p>\n Even if I granted that it did indeed have to do with the faith, directly, there is still no \u201cprocedural\u201d infallibility involved, as I have already explained, because this was not a solemn, binding decree made by a pope or by an ecumenical council in conjunction with a pope. Those are the conditions of infallibility; therefore, this situation does not fall into the category. Period. Case closed. It\u2019s really not that complicated. It ain\u2019t even toy rocket science. :-)<\/p>\n You can believe we\u2019re merely \u201crationalizing\u201d if you wish. I say you don\u2019t understand what it is you are discussing, as indicated by the convenient, cynical redefinition of terms. This fails the most fundamental requirements of true, constructive dialogue (accurately comprehend the opponent\u2019s view, so as to avoid straw men).<\/p>\n If infallibility is out of the picture, then it is merely a matter of a fallible decree by a non-infallible organ of the Catholic Church. They made a mistake. No one thought it was impossible for Catholics or even the Church to make a mistake in the first place (on the sub-infallible level). So it is much ado about nothing (i.e., in terms of ramifications for infallibility).<\/p>\n I think it was a\u00a0serious<\/i>\u00a0mistake, that clearly had negative repercussions for years to come (it would be much better if it had never happened), but it has no bearing on the status of Catholic authority.<\/p>\n It\u2019s one thing to assert:<\/p>\n 1) X is erroneous because of A, B, and C.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n . . . and then reject X on those grounds. But what you are doing is something different:<\/p>\n 2) Pseudo-X (i.e., X as I arbitrarily redefine and distort it) is erroneous.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Since I don\u2019t believe in Pseudo-X, I am under no intellectual obligation to defend it. In fact, it would literally be dishonest for me to do so, because I would be granting your false premise, and I can\u2019t honestly do that.<\/p>\n Therefore, the discussion is at a dead-end until such time as you correctly understand what X (the Catholic doctrine of infallibility) is.<\/p>\n Nothing personal; I\u2019m just being consistent with my own principles and belief-system and applying simple logic (primarily, a=a).<\/p>\n I agree that this is kind of an impasse. You are defending the doctor with the prescriptions that have caused death by saying that he didn\u2019t use the special signature and special paper.<\/span> My reply presupposes your assertion that all of this is a big deal and is somehow a knockout argument against the Catholic Church. It\u2019s not. I\u2019m not defending the thing itself, but rather, the cynical, erroneous conclusions drawn from it. And I am opposing double standards.<\/p>\n As I said, I\u2019m not denying that an error was made, as I have said over and over again. I\u2019m denying that this was a disproof of infallibility and other conclusions drawn from it that don\u2019t follow at all.<\/p>\n When the decree was issued it was understood as coming from the Pope in his official capacity.<\/span><\/p>\n To some extent that was probably true. But that\u2019s the distinction between authority and infallibility that I drew earlier. The former is a much larger category than the latter. They aren\u2019t identical.<\/p>\n See the intro to Newton\u2019s\u00a0<\/span>Principia<\/span>\u00a0and Galileo\u2019s tract on the motion of comets. Kind of like patients confidently getting prescriptions filled imagining them to be infallible.<\/span>\u00a0Then when they aren\u2019t the prior decrees die the death of a thousand qualifications. Is it logically possible that in fact they are right though they are acting like the phony doctor would? Sure. But the question is, is that a reasonable belief? Don\u2019t confuse my claim with a claim that my position is conclusively demonstrated like some mathematical theorem. My claim is that this is a reasonable understanding of the facts. Can you at least understand how it looks to an outsider? Doesn\u2019t it look like a phony doctor?<\/span><\/p>\n If you don\u2019t understand the nature of Catholic ecclesiology (and some of the rationale for it, that is provided by apologetics), sure. In this respect you and the anti-Catholic Protestants you used to hang around are in almost exactly the same boat: neither will take the time to learn how Catholic ecclesiology works, and you won\u2019t take the word of folks like myself (who defend the system as my occupation) that you don\u2019t understand it. Because you don\u2019t comprehend it, you can only view it as some sort of sleight-of-hand or casuistry (I love that word) in order to desperately uphold a fundamentally irrational and internally contradictory system.<\/p>\n You know full well when Christians are misrepresenting the thoughts and motivations of atheists. I know when Catholicism is being vastly misunderstood and caricatured.<\/p>\n You seem to not even comprehend the logic of the argument I am making. This suggests to me that the basis of your objection from the start is merely emotional rather than rational. You despise the Catholic system to such an extent that it is of no concern to you whether you accurately describe it, in order to shoot it down. And so you hold firm to your erroneous convictions, no matter what I say.<\/p>\n Unless you better understand the nature of infallibility, there is no possibility of further discussion. It\u2019d be like trying to discuss geology with a guy who thinks the earth is flat. It can go nowhere because the starting assumption is so ludicrous and non-factual.<\/p>\n By your reasoning, why wasn\u2019t Galileo a \u201cphony\u201d scientist when he asserted that the tides proved heliocentrism, or that astrology conveyed much truth, or that orbits were circular rather than elliptical, or that planets in orbit traveled at constant, rather than variable speeds, or that the entire universe went around the sun, that was at its center, or that comets were optical illusions, or that heliocentrism was \u201cproven\u201d in the early 17th century when there was as of yet no hard proof for that?<\/p>\n Why are there are these grand, melodramatic conclusions about the Catholic Church because of one error it made at one specific time (about cosmology and science, not theology or morals), but Galileo and other scientific whoppers that have occurred (in retrospect) get a huge pass and no criticism is directed towards those things?<\/p>\n Is that not Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee, as far as error is concerned? In fact, I would say that Galileo\u2019s errors are more foolish, insofar as he was dogmatic from the epistemology of science, where that has no place. One expects religious bodies to be dogmatic by their very nature, because we claim to be conveying revealed truths of revelation. But dogma supposedly has no place in science (Thomas Kuhn and Stephen Jay Gould thought quite otherwise, insofar as how science is actually\u00a0practiced<\/i>).<\/p>\n It was simply erroneous for those in the Galileo tribunal to interpret the Bible as if it precluded either heliocentrism or a rotating earth. The Bible\u2019s not a science book and it has to be interpreted according to the principles of phenomenological description and anthropomorphism and anthropopathism.<\/p>\n We do this ourselves, naturally, all the time, by saying \u201cthe sun rose at 5 AM\u201d or \u201cthe stars moved across the sky.\u201d<\/p>\n But I look at Galileo\u2019s factual scientific errors and I give him a pass because he was early in the modern scientific scene. Science builds on the shoulders of past giants, and at that time there weren\u2019t many \u201cgiants\u201d in terms of\u00a0modern<\/i>\u00a0scientific method. So one can excuse these things.<\/p>\n I go on to say that you ought to excuse the Church of that time on the very same basis, rather than going on and on about it. Logically, if you wish to do that (even on your fallacious basis), you should direct equal (if not more) ire at Galileo for\u00a0his<\/i>\u00a0errors. You should criticize both equally, on roughly the same basis, or neither. But it is inconsistent to blast the Church and call us \u201cphony,\u201d etc., while giving Galileo a complete pass.<\/p>\n But you don\u2019t and won\u2019t do that because he opposed the big bad boogey man: the Church. Protestants act in much the same fashion when it comes to Luther. No matter how often he is wrong, he\u2019s the Big Hero because he stood against Rome, the Beast (he used to be one of mine, too, so I understand that from the \u201cinside\u201d). So he is idealized and all his manifest faults are winked at, as of no consequence or import.<\/p>\n But (don\u2019t get me wrong) I admire Luther in many ways, too, just as I do, Galileo . . .<\/p>\n I really don\u2019t despise the RCC in the least. I\u2019m very effusive in my praise of Catholic leadership in many areas, especially their vast efforts regarding human rights and what Hans Kung calls \u201cthe preferential option for the poor\u201d emanating from Vatican II.<\/span><\/p>\n Okay; good. All the more reason to accurately understand our teaching on infallibility and all the more inexplicable that you don\u2019t seem to be willing to do that, or accept any correction on it.<\/p>\n I do criticize what I see as immoral behavior as well, but I know that Catholicism is not all about child molestation, as some anti-theists might pretend.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course. That is a tiny percentage of priests: disproportionately of homosexual orientation (80% or so of the victims being young boys).<\/p>\n I admire much biblical teaching and regard it as morally challenging, despite some moral errors that were largely a product of the time they were written.<\/span><\/p>\n Good.<\/p>\n I\u2019m just calling it the way that I see it with regards to infallibility.<\/span><\/p>\n That doesn\u2019t dispense you from the responsibility of accurately portraying that which you critique, and defining it correctly.<\/p>\n Of course. My point though is that the charges that I\u2019m drawing my conclusions because of hostility is completely false.<\/span><\/p>\n Nothing you\u2019ve said is new to me. I\u2019m well aware of the distinctions you make, how authority is not infallibility, how faith and morals are the purview as opposed to science, etc. These are actually distinctions I accept as reasonable. But I do not accept them as reasonable\u00a0<\/span>as applied to some specific cases<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n Huh? Unless you respond to my arguments directly, I have no idea what you mean.<\/p>\n You confuse my unwillingness to accept the reasonableness of the applicability of these distinctions\u00a0<\/span>in this case<\/i>\u00a0with the view that I actually don\u2019t comprehend the distinctions. Not true.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m happy to take you at your word. So then you make an exception in this case. But how and why would anyone do that?<\/p>\n I\u2019m not making any exception. I\u2019m applying a consistent standard. The church, via an inquisition called by the Pope, issued in it\u2019s official capacity a ruling on a matter of faith (related to the interpretation of Scripture and position of our planet in the universe). The ruling was erroneous and so the RCC is not infallible.<\/span><\/p>\n Jeffrey A. Mirus, in his article,\u00a0Galileo and the Magisterium: a Second Look<\/a>, disabuses any fair-minded inquirer of these notions (his words in\u00a0green<\/span>):<\/p>\n [T]he sentence itself bears the signatures of seven of the ten judges; the Pope, in other words, did not officially endorse the decision (there was, of course, no reason why he should, since the Court was simply exercising its normal powers).<\/span><\/p>\n The decision states otherwise. It states that the earlier decision (found<\/span>\u00a0here<\/a>)\u00a0was \u201cthe declaration made by our Lord the Pope, and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index\u201d that the Copernican view was contrary to Scripture and therefore cannot be defended or held.<\/span><\/p>\n You link to the 1633 decree, not the 1616 one. And I don\u2019t find the words you cite from the 1633 decree, so you need to clarify what it is you are citing.<\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/p>\n
\nSkeptic Caricaturist<\/b>:<\/b>\u00a0Well, it has to do with the doctrine of creation, which is part of the attributes of God, no?<\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>Again, you have misconstrued my argument. I\u2019m not defending the decision to condemn Galileo in the slightest. I think it was wrongheaded and a serious error (though it continues to be poorly understood in its entirety).<\/p>\n
\nYou say that you get to define what qualifies as an infallible prescription.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Every system is understood by its practitioners to be of a certain nature, yes (self-understanding and self-definition). That\u2019s self-evident. Scientists resent outsiders coming in and telling them how to do their business. They see that as the height of presumptuousness, ignorance, and folly (and often it is: I mostly agree with them). Likewise, Catholics don\u2019t care for outsiders coming in and claiming to understand our system and how it works when they clearly don\u2019t, and won\u2019t take the time to learn and get up to speed.<\/p>\n
\nYou can do that and logically evade the charge of error.<\/span><\/p>\n