3 ms·

People make a great deal about these "science martyrs". But, from a more disinterested perspective, one cannot entirely blame the Catholic Church's approach.

by yters 8y ago

People make a great deal about these "science martyrs". But, from a more disinterested perspective, one cannot entirely blame the Catholic Church's approach. None of the martyrs had clear evidence they were correct, and were often pursuing a larger agenda of undermining the Church's authority and the general spiritual worldview. Was the Church right to imprison and kill these people? Probably not. But, was the Church wrong in its concerns? Considering the untold millions of killings of the past couple centuries that resulted from scientism and naturalism, the Church's concerns about the so called heretical scientists may not have been entirely unfounded.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
krapp 8y ago
> Considering the untold millions of killings of the past couple centuries that resulted from scientism and naturalism, the Church's concerns about the so called heretical scientists may not have been entirely unfounded. But the Church of the day had no problem with killing - in fact, they were quite enthusiastically into it, when it came to heathens, Muslims and Jews. And eventually Protestants. I mean, it's only because of scientism and naturalism that mass murder in the name of God is even considered immoral nowadays, much less illegal.
- yters 8y ago
  There were certainly wars during that time, but is it true the Church engaged in the mass genocides like the atheist regimes of the past couple centuries? I'd like to see proof of this.
  - krapp 8y ago
    > but is it true the Church engaged in the mass genocides like the atheist regimes of the past couple centuries? Surely, mass murder is mass murder, regardless of the label you apply to it. You're dismissing things like the Crusades and the Church's attempts to convert the New World by force. One could possibly claim that modern "atheist" regimes were capable of mass murder at a greater scale than the Church due to the effect of industrialization ... certainly the Holocaust might not have been as effective as it was had the Nazis been limited to pen and paper, horseback and swords. But, I don't see evidence for the implication that non-theocratic governments or societies are inherently more violent than theocratic ones, rather I see a lot of evidence to the contrary, that unchecked religion permits unchecked violence, because you can argue with a secular authority, but if you believe in God, you can't argue with God. I mean, you can, but if your government claims authority by divine right, then doing so is a threat to the state and it probably won't end well for you. But my point was that, whatever concerns the Church might have had about the effect of heretical ideas, the possibility of violence was not one of them.
    - yters 8y ago
      They of course did not foresee the French Terror, Communist revolution, Pol Pot's killing fields, Mao's Great Leap Forward, and the Holocaust. But, they did realize the implications of believing man was only matter and that there was no moral order. Christianity was formed in the midst of societies that had very little regard for human life, and stood out for protesting the oppression of their day.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- antidesitter 8y ago
  > it's only because of scientism and naturalism that mass murder in the name of God is even considered immoral Many people considered such mass murder immoral in the past, too.
marcosdumay 8y ago
Well, the Church was killing people for doing nothing but failing to believe whatever fables it spoke. One can, and should blame them for that. And if you want to throw morals out and do a cold analysis of their acts, no mature empire ever survived after it started persecuting people just because they disagreed with the leadership. (Yes, way too many did it, and yes, there is a huge sampling bias.) So, no, even on purely practical judgment, the Church was wrong. About none of them having evidence, Galileo was the first to get some good evidence of heliocentrism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_Venus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_Venus
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ilove_banh_mi 8y ago
The Inquisition was evil. The people running it tortured and murdered countless individuals simply because they wanted to think and speak freely. An agnostic-sounding perspective does not reduce that evil in any way.

by yters 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

krapp 8y ago

> Considering the untold millions of killings of the past couple centuries that resulted from scientism and naturalism, the Church's concerns about the so called heretical scientists may not have been entirely unfounded. But the Church of the day had no problem with killing - in fact, they were quite enthusiastically into it, when it came to heathens, Muslims and Jews. And eventually Protestants. I mean, it's only because of scientism and naturalism that mass murder in the name of God is even considered immoral nowadays, much less illegal.

yters 8y ago
There were certainly wars during that time, but is it true the Church engaged in the mass genocides like the atheist regimes of the past couple centuries? I'd like to see proof of this.
- krapp 8y ago
  > but is it true the Church engaged in the mass genocides like the atheist regimes of the past couple centuries? Surely, mass murder is mass murder, regardless of the label you apply to it. You're dismissing things like the Crusades and the Church's attempts to convert the New World by force. One could possibly claim that modern "atheist" regimes were capable of mass murder at a greater scale than the Church due to the effect of industrialization ... certainly the Holocaust might not have been as effective as it was had the Nazis been limited to pen and paper, horseback and swords. But, I don't see evidence for the implication that non-theocratic governments or societies are inherently more violent than theocratic ones, rather I see a lot of evidence to the contrary, that unchecked religion permits unchecked violence, because you can argue with a secular authority, but if you believe in God, you can't argue with God. I mean, you can, but if your government claims authority by divine right, then doing so is a threat to the state and it probably won't end well for you. But my point was that, whatever concerns the Church might have had about the effect of heretical ideas, the possibility of violence was not one of them.
  - yters 8y ago
    They of course did not foresee the French Terror, Communist revolution, Pol Pot's killing fields, Mao's Great Leap Forward, and the Holocaust. But, they did realize the implications of believing man was only matter and that there was no moral order. Christianity was formed in the midst of societies that had very little regard for human life, and stood out for protesting the oppression of their day.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
antidesitter 8y ago
> it's only because of scientism and naturalism that mass murder in the name of God is even considered immoral Many people considered such mass murder immoral in the past, too.

marcosdumay 8y ago

Well, the Church was killing people for doing nothing but failing to believe whatever fables it spoke. One can, and should blame them for that. And if you want to throw morals out and do a cold analysis of their acts, no mature empire ever survived after it started persecuting people just because they disagreed with the leadership. (Yes, way too many did it, and yes, there is a huge sampling bias.) So, no, even on purely practical judgment, the Church was wrong. About none of them having evidence, Galileo was the first to get some good evidence of heliocentrism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_Venus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_Venus

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ilove_banh_mi 8y ago

The Inquisition was evil. The people running it tortured and murdered countless individuals simply because they wanted to think and speak freely. An agnostic-sounding perspective does not reduce that evil in any way.