4 ms·

That's not quite how it happened, or do you think Ptolemy came up with the geocentric model because of the Jewish scriptures? https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013

That's not quite how it happened, or do you think Ptolemy came up with the geocentric model because of the Jewish scriptures? https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-sma...

heavenlyblue 8y ago
Nah, come on - the parent is directly stating "medieval monks came up with the scientific method thus religion is not against the science". I am stating "even if medieval monks came up with scientific method (although I disagree with this), then they did so in spite of religion, not because it helped them". Besides, Ptolemy is a guy from pre-medieval times. That, again - is against whatever the parent said, that scientific method was invented during medieval times.
- scottlocklin 8y ago
  You could at least quote it without editorialization. Monks did come up with the scientific method. The modern idea that "religion is against the science" is hilariously Freudian: holders of power (almost entirely atheists in the west) will often be against science. There are countless examples of this. You could crack the NYT editorial page on any given day and be confronted with learned anti-scientific nonsense that would make the persecutors of Gallileo blush.
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    >> You could crack the NYT editorial page on any given day and be confronted with learned anti-scientific nonsense that would make the persecutors of Gallileo blush. Oh, so you agree with the fact that religion is at least close to be as bad as anti-scientific nonsense? >> Monks did come up with the scientific method. Give me a source which directly says that "monks have come up with the scientific method". I can give you one: if you open "A History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell, on the first 200 pages on it you'll find that Aristotle is considered to be father of the modern science. Why? Because of a piece called "Posterior Analytics". Look it up, at least.
    - scottlocklin 8y ago
      Anti scientific nonsense is a failure of human beings, not "religion." Modern people are arguably worse offenders than even the worst medieval days. Bertrand Russell's book, unfortunately for you, is online (FWIIW Wisdom of the West is much better). The phrase "Scientific Method" appears a grand total of 7 times in the entire 960 page book. Bacon and Grosseteste do show up in it, but Russell is basically completely unconcerned with the subject of who originated the scientific method. He was also a typical English bigot of his day, largely dismissive of the contributions of papists. One thing you apparently have in common with Bertrand Russell. You can go read "Man and Technics" by Oswald Spengler if you care to lift your pig ignorance on this topic. It's short and sweet. He wrote something larger, but I strongly suspect you lack the attention span.
      - dang 8y ago
        Ouch, please don't call names like that on HN. It breaks the site guidelines and mars your otherwise fine comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lliamander 8y ago
  The particular line to which I was responding: > Let's not forget that during the same times we were struggling with proving the Earth was circling around the Sun because of what the scriptures said. That characterization is mostly false. The geo-centric model was neither adopted as a result of the Christian scriptures (it was inherited from the pagan Greeks) nor was it (primarily) defended for that reason. It was defended because there were solid reasons (given available information at the time) to hold the geo-centric view. Ptolemy being a pre-medieval pagan Greek was my point. I.e. the debate about cosmology wasn't primarily religiously motivated.
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    >> neither adopted as a result of the Christian scriptures (it was inherited from the pagan Greeks) The geo-centric view comes from religions older than Greek culture which was then stolen by Christians. But it was as much a heresy (well, heresy is a Christian concept, but you know what I mean) to say that Earth is not center in the world in the _religions_ of ancient Greece as much as it was in _religions_ of Christianity. Thus my point still stands: the science behind anything is in direct confrontation with any religious teaching that ever existed. Thus religions should not exist.
    - lliamander 8y ago
      I don't know what to tell you. I've already given a link to an essay describing the arguments that Christian scholars from medieval and renaissance times debating the issue. I could find others. Apparently it wasn't that much of a heresy.
      - heavenlyblue 8y ago
        Yeah, but Christian philosophy wasn’t (as against to theology) developed by Christians. They just copied most of Plato and then changed him to fit the narrative of their scriptures. While destroying anyone who was considered a heretic (eg the argument between Gnostics and Adoptionists). And heretics were simply people who believed in interpretations of the scriptures which were simply a hit off the official one. Doesn’t that seem so much like USSR?

heavenlyblue 8y ago

Nah, come on - the parent is directly stating "medieval monks came up with the scientific method thus religion is not against the science". I am stating "even if medieval monks came up with scientific method (although I disagree with this), then they did so in spite of religion, not because it helped them". Besides, Ptolemy is a guy from pre-medieval times. That, again - is against whatever the parent said, that scientific method was invented during medieval times.

scottlocklin 8y ago
You could at least quote it without editorialization. Monks did come up with the scientific method. The modern idea that "religion is against the science" is hilariously Freudian: holders of power (almost entirely atheists in the west) will often be against science. There are countless examples of this. You could crack the NYT editorial page on any given day and be confronted with learned anti-scientific nonsense that would make the persecutors of Gallileo blush.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  >> You could crack the NYT editorial page on any given day and be confronted with learned anti-scientific nonsense that would make the persecutors of Gallileo blush. Oh, so you agree with the fact that religion is at least close to be as bad as anti-scientific nonsense? >> Monks did come up with the scientific method. Give me a source which directly says that "monks have come up with the scientific method". I can give you one: if you open "A History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell, on the first 200 pages on it you'll find that Aristotle is considered to be father of the modern science. Why? Because of a piece called "Posterior Analytics". Look it up, at least.
  - scottlocklin 8y ago
    Anti scientific nonsense is a failure of human beings, not "religion." Modern people are arguably worse offenders than even the worst medieval days. Bertrand Russell's book, unfortunately for you, is online (FWIIW Wisdom of the West is much better). The phrase "Scientific Method" appears a grand total of 7 times in the entire 960 page book. Bacon and Grosseteste do show up in it, but Russell is basically completely unconcerned with the subject of who originated the scientific method. He was also a typical English bigot of his day, largely dismissive of the contributions of papists. One thing you apparently have in common with Bertrand Russell. You can go read "Man and Technics" by Oswald Spengler if you care to lift your pig ignorance on this topic. It's short and sweet. He wrote something larger, but I strongly suspect you lack the attention span.
    - dang 8y ago
      Ouch, please don't call names like that on HN. It breaks the site guidelines and mars your otherwise fine comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
lliamander 8y ago
The particular line to which I was responding: > Let's not forget that during the same times we were struggling with proving the Earth was circling around the Sun because of what the scriptures said. That characterization is mostly false. The geo-centric model was neither adopted as a result of the Christian scriptures (it was inherited from the pagan Greeks) nor was it (primarily) defended for that reason. It was defended because there were solid reasons (given available information at the time) to hold the geo-centric view. Ptolemy being a pre-medieval pagan Greek was my point. I.e. the debate about cosmology wasn't primarily religiously motivated.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  >> neither adopted as a result of the Christian scriptures (it was inherited from the pagan Greeks) The geo-centric view comes from religions older than Greek culture which was then stolen by Christians. But it was as much a heresy (well, heresy is a Christian concept, but you know what I mean) to say that Earth is not center in the world in the _religions_ of ancient Greece as much as it was in _religions_ of Christianity. Thus my point still stands: the science behind anything is in direct confrontation with any religious teaching that ever existed. Thus religions should not exist.
  - lliamander 8y ago
    I don't know what to tell you. I've already given a link to an essay describing the arguments that Christian scholars from medieval and renaissance times debating the issue. I could find others. Apparently it wasn't that much of a heresy.
    - heavenlyblue 8y ago
      Yeah, but Christian philosophy wasn’t (as against to theology) developed by Christians. They just copied most of Plato and then changed him to fit the narrative of their scriptures. While destroying anyone who was considered a heretic (eg the argument between Gnostics and Adoptionists). And heretics were simply people who believed in interpretations of the scriptures which were simply a hit off the official one. Doesn’t that seem so much like USSR?