At 10:38 am 28/06/2005 -0400, you wrote: > Grimer wrote: > >> In The Sleepwalkers (1959) Koestler writes, . . . > > That is a fascinating description of Galileo and the conflict. I have often > quoted it myself. Koestler described another fascinating aspect of the > dispute. The story that Church experts "refused to look through the > telescope" is pure moonshine. They did look, but the instrument was poorly > designed and constructed, and what they saw was unconvincing. Also, it > should be noted that the Church initially supported the Copernican theory, > and over the centuries it has funded a great deal of top-notch scientific > and academic research. I certainly agree this situation is not black and > white. I was just kidding yesterday. On the other hand I am adamant that > religion -- politics, and other belief systems -- should *never* dictate > what "may be allowed to hold as true." > > - Jed
I apologise for not realising you were "kidding". Uncharitably, I thought you were trotting out the same old claptrap more characteristic of Ian Paisley than Jed Rothwell and so I thought I would earn myself a few heavenly brownie points by undertaking one of the Corporal Works of Mercy, to wit, Instructing the Ignorant. <grin> As far as *never* dictat[ing] what "may be allowed to hold as true." is concerned, nobody has to be in the Catholic Club but if you break the rules then it's not unreasonable to expect to be kicked out. Every organization has to have rules or else there is anarchy. Why even Vortex has rules - and occasionally Pope William who "dictates" the rules has to bring out his bell, book and candle and excommunicate some errant member of his flock for constantly breaking them. Now the rules of the Catholic Church are related to belief since it is an organisation concerned with salvation through the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity. It does not seem unreasonable to me therefore that the church teaches what has to be believed if members want to remain in good standing within their organisation. If you don't want to believe in transubstantiation, for example, then join the Church of England where one can believe in almost anything except that it's OK for a Bishop to marry his boyfriend - though if you wait a few more years one will probably even be allowed to believe in that. ;-) Also, I should explain that belief in not a matter of emotion, it is not about what one feels, it is a matter of will, it is what one does. When I first realised that materials were held together from the outside I did not believe it emotionally at all. But I believed it to be true and I realised that I had a duty to act upon that belief - a duty to Truth which I could not escape. I realised that by publishing my belief I would stand an excellent chance of being excommunicated from my tenured post as a Principal Scientific Officer in Government Service. But not to have done so would have been moral cowardice of the worst kind that a scientist can commit - the equivalent of running away in the face of the enemy. Fortunately my fears were groundless and the only result was that I was never promoted to sit behind a desk and sign people's expense forms. In other words, like Brere Rabbit, I had the good fortune to be thrown into the briar bush. 8-) Cheers Frank Grimer
