Sun 11 Jan, 2009
“American Thinker: Christianity and the Round Planet”
3:32 pm Comments (31) Filed under: Thinking Christianly
With a tip of the hat to Holopupenko, who emphasized that Christianity Gave the World Science, here is this from Bruce Walker:
Many people, like me, grew up believing that when Columbus sailed to America in 1492, Christians at the time thought that he would fall off the edge of the world. Not only were we taught this in school, but even serious historians like Daniel Boorstein, in his book, The Discoverers, states as historical fact that European Christians thought the world was flat. This sure makes Christians sound ignorant, doesn’t it? There is only one problem: there is not a lick of truth to it.
[Link: American Thinker: Christianity and the Round Planet]
I’m glad that more people are working to take this myth about medieval Christians believing in a flat Earth out of circulation. Here’s my post on the Flat Earth Myth, with source quotes from Christian thinkers from the Middle Ages who clearly show an understanding that the Earth is spherical, as well as quotes from those like Andrew Dickson White who propogated this myth into our textbooks.
Do You Believe the Flat Earth Myth?
Sure, they opposed heliocentrism, tortured heretics, legislated dogma, promoted superstition, and burned witches … But at least they believed in a spherical earth!
Who opposed heliocentrism? The Church wasn’t the primary proponent. The chief opponents of heliocentrism were the secular Aristotelean scientists. The Church simply subscribed to what was the reigning scientific paradigm at the time. And though today it seems obvious that the Earth moves around the sun, back then it seemed just as obvious that the Earth did not move. Empirical evidence that the Earth really did move around the sun didn’t come until the 18th century with the discovery of stellar aberration and later stellar parallax. Galileo’s own “proofs” could either be explained by the Tychonian model (phases of Venus) or were simply wrong (the motion of the tides). So the whole thing about heliocentrism versus geocentrism was not a case of science versus the church, but rather scientific theory versus scientific theory.
Sure, they opposed heliocentrism, tortured heretics, legislated dogma, promoted superstition, and burned witches … But at least they believed in a spherical earth, and at least the papal decree against heliocentrism was, deep down, motivated by the teachings of “Aristotelian scientists” and had nothing at all to do with the Bible (I swear)!
What “myth” shall we expose next? Hmm… How about the Inquisition? Like, perhaps it was really run by secular Aristotelian scientists: When they tortured heretics and burned witches, it was in the name of Science. In fact, they were probably atheists, and Communists to boot. And maybe they caused 9/11 as well! It’s all starting to make sense…
Jordan, in view of myths like “the Christian war against science,” you might want to be not so quick to jump into statements like that. Heliocentrism, as has been pointed out already, was not a Christian dogma, it was Ptolemy/Aristotle. I’d be willing to guess your view of the Inquisition is not entirely in keeping with the reality that was.
And as for superstition, I suggest you examine the current record. I’ve read the original research report on that, by the way, and it looks plenty solid.
Tom,
You can’t really expect Jordan to look at the real history behind this. By his own admission, he’s not the least interested in looking at evidence for anything he’d rather not believe.
Most of those who persist in the “war on science” myth are exactly the same in that way: evidence and historical facts never enter their consideration. That’s why they regurgitate embarrassingly inaccurate sound bites instead of legitimate criticism.
MedicineMan: I’m tired of the way you constantly misrepresent everyone who disagrees with you (including me). Where did I say or even imply that I’m not interested in looking at evidence for things I’d rather not believe? I said it’s ok to reject ideas that are obviously ridiculous (i.e., smurfs, the Tooth Fairy, Christianity, etc.). There’s a difference between the theological/philosophical claims of Christianity and its history.
This is why I am reluctant to respond to you. You are, quite frankly, deceitful. People like you only serve to push people like me even further away from Christianity. At any rate, I think this is the last response you’ll get from me.
Tom: Why should it matter whether geocentrism originated with Ptolemy or the Church (and yes, I know it originated with Ptolemy)? The problem here is dogma, and the associated notion of heresy. It doesn’t matter, in the context of the point I was trying make, which particular beliefs the Church held, or who came up with said beliefs, or whether or not they were factual. What matters is that the Church tried to force its beliefs upon society (in the form of dogma), and tried to ban & censor opposing beliefs (which took the form of “heresy”), often by threat of violence.
Jordan,
You were the one who said:
I’m calling the idea that religion (particularly Christianity) has been at war with, or generally opposed to, science a transparently nonsensical idea that isn’t supported by history. The claim comes only from the misinformed or willfully dishonest. I’m certainly smirking at it, which in your view is justifiable. I’m also calling it embarrassingly inaccurate. If that’s “calling it names”, you ought to be the last to complain.
If I’m misrepresenting you, please explain what you said in the cited thread:
You’ve chosen, out of hand, to dismiss the need to examine what Christianity says, even though we have strongly disputed the truth of this:
The whole point being made was that the theological / philosophical foundations of Christianity are in its historical reality unlike any other religion or faith. You chose not to contend that, and why would you? You’ve already decided that it’s not worth looking at.
That, in my opinion, makes any statement on your part about the history of Christianity suspect in its honesty. You have openly said that you don’t feel that the religion itself if worth knowing anything about. Why would you treat its place in history any differently?
I can’t imagine a person who says the kinds of things you did being truly open to Christianity in any sense. I choose to respond to that kind of irrationality, and the kind of blatantly false claims you make, with direct opposition. What you have said is false, and your approach is severely flawed. I don’t see the deceit involved in pointing that out. In fact, I think the onus is on you to demonstrate how your dismissive attitude towards Christianity isn’t exactly what I said it is: a refusal to consider that which you’d rather not believe.
Frankly, I’m not particularly concerned if you reply or not. I don’t see any value in your attitude, or your approach, and I see no truth in your criticisms. So, my responses to you, including here, are more intended for others who might read this.
Do you honestly not see the difference between this:
And this:
?
History and philosophy are not the same. One can be interested in historical events without taking seriously the antiquated opinions of the figures involved. Do you really care about Genghis Khan’s thoughts on asthetics?
News flash: Your imagination and reality are two different things.
What irrationality? Be specific.
Which claims? Be specific.
What exactly did I say that was false?
The deceit was in misrepresenting the former of the two statements quoted at the beginning of my post as the latter. The fact that you’ve gone off on this bizarre tangent about my “irrationality” only reinforces my opinion of your character (and, although out of politeness I haven’t mentioned it until now, intellect).
I think the onus is on you to demonstrate how your dismissive attitude towards smurfs isn’t exactly what I said it is: A refusal to consider that which you’d rather not believe (Gargamel?).
That is seriously how ridiculous you sound.
You’re the stereotypical Internet Christian: Abrasive, bombastic, fatuous, almost unbearably long-winded, and totally uninterested in Christianity as such. For you, its about the argument. You want to win. You want to humiliate your opponent. We could be arguing about fabric softener for all you care, just as long as you get the last word in, and as long as you can brow-beat your opponent with 10-page treatises on how stupid they are for preferring Bounce over Downy. It’s pitiful to watch, and even more pitiful to participate in, yet time and time again I get sucked into it… *sigh*
What a waste of time…
Jordan:
You are ignorant of the terms you bandy about. Medicine Man is correct: you have no interest in actually checking facts–historical or otherwise, for that would truly challenge your preconceived notions.
Just one small example is the amateurish use of the terms “dogma” and “heresy.” You’re using them incorrectly and you clearly DON’T know what they mean. “Dogma” means “official teaching.” It’s “official” so that people can understand precisely what the Church believes. Whether people agree or disagree is irrelevant. (You may disagree with the rules of chess because you self-centeredly want to win every game against Gary Kasparov, but the rules are there for clarity and so that an even playing field is available for everyone. Just because the rules committee disqualifies you doesn’t mean they are evil.) You twist “dogma” to mean what you want it to mean so that your preconceived and disordered vision of Christianity remains unassailable… at least in your own eyes.
Of course, you can now retort with the usual “yes, I knew that,”… NOT. No one is going to believe you. Those terms have long-standing and very definite meanings precisely so that confusion is avoided. You, however, could care less for you take refuge in subterfuge to impose your personal, emotional views upon others. And… then you start with name-calling against those who merely challenge your silly notions.
People like you only serve to push people like us even further away from the self-serving hypocrisy of secularism and the deadliness (over 100 million lives) of atheism. What a waste of time…
Jordan,
I can see that there can be a difference between the two ideas you’re delineating. I’m simply saying that for you, no such separation is being made. When you speak of Christianity as something as thinly evidenced or unsupportable as the Emperor’s Clothes, you prove my point that you’re being irrational. Just because you don’t believe in Christ does not mean that the Bible is as fictional as Gargamel.
That analogy, also, demonstrates my point. I would ask if you really can’t see the difference between Smurfs and Jesus, but you’ve already answered that. I won’t be so pathetic as to question your intellect, but the fact that you keep making those kinds of assertions is why I am more than justified in questioning your prejudicial approach to the idea of Christianity.
If you really were interested in historical events, to the extent of actually knowing what history does and does not record, you’d never attempt to defend the silly “war of religion vs science” nonsense.
You’ve said yourself that some things don’t deserve to be considered, and that Christianity is one of them. Therefore, if it’s false for me to say that you haven’t considered the evidence (which includes historical facts) for Christianity, then the deception is not mine. It’s also reasonable for me to assume that your respect for history is greatly colored by what you consider “worthy”, and that consideration is hardly objective.
So, the irrationality is your sophomoric insistence that Smurfs and Christ have equal factual or philosophical truth value, for one. In general, the idea that anything you deem “nonsense” doesn’t deserve to be analyzed rationally – which means you make irrational decisions by definition.
The ‘claims’ you make are those you echoed here: caricatured versions of the relationship between religion and science, and those you’ve made elsewhere, such as conflating the evidence for the Bible with that of the Emperor’s Clothes. That’s absurdly false to the point where questioning your prejudice against Christianity is perfectly justified. You also use terms without understanding their meaning (look up “dogma” and see if it matches the criticism you’re applying here).
You can call me all the names you like, but I’m not going to pretend that your approach is rational, reasonable, or intellectually defensible. If you can’t take a strong refutation of your approach, why do you make inflammatory comments about Christianity on a Christian blog? What could that possibly be about for you, but “the argument?”
As I said, what you think is of no concern to me. If this was about politics or broccoli I wouldn’t care less. But your approaching legitimate, important ideas with a prejudiced, arrogant, and ignorant attitude. So, you’ll be challenged on what you say. And if you don’t want a lot of “wind”, then don’t fly kites, if you get my drift.
Don’t give me any of this “woe-is-me” business. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. I can’t think of anything more typical of the internet skeptic than the person who wants to be snide and sarcastic, then folds up and pouts when someone takes them to task for being irrational.
Holopupenko,
I was typing when you sent your reply…glad to see I wasn’t the only one who noticed that “dogma” was being misunderstood.
Hi Holopupenko,
Words have layers of meanings. (My favorite is “cleave,” which takes layers to a new level by going all the way around the barn; it either means to split something apart or exactly the opposite, as in to forcibly “cleave two parts together.”)
Just because Jordan used a word differently than you’d prefer him to doesn’t mean he used it incorrectly. The first definition that appeared on top of my Google search is, apparently an acceptable definition. (There’s “dogmatic,” as well, a word that has connotations it gets from its root.)
I could have stopped at “Whether people agree or disagree is irrelevant,” and gone for the cheap points with a comment like, “Unless you’re being burned at the stake!” But where would that have gotten us?
The first part is not true (see above), the second part is speculative and an ad hominem that stifles discussion, and the last part is a dismissal (unearned, I might add).
I keep on getting asked a version of “Why do you even come to a Christian site to spew your garbage?” question. (Let’s avoid the easy points score here, please.) I just think it’s in our nature to want to convince others (against all hope, I know), to test our own ideas, and to try to understand those who think differently than we do. I enjoy the issues – I think we’re made to argue them.
I’ll try and get some time tomorrow to make another post more on topic, but if you all think it’s a waste of time for people like Jordan, Dr. Logic, Paul, etc. to post here then I’ll not bother to throw my two cents in.
Of course I can. I cannot, however, see the difference between smurfs and the supernaturalistic claims of the Bible. Both are patent nonsense when viewed against the background of my everyday experience.
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian home, so I have had firsthand experience of religion’s potential for opposition to science.
The fact that Christianity, as a philosophy, needn’t be taken seriously does not entail that one can’t or shouldn’t be interested in historical facts that pertain to Christianity. You are being illogical here.
Again, you are misrepresenting me. I said that it is ok to reject nonsensical ideas without analyzing them in depth. Obviously this would entail enough rational analysis to ascertain the silliness of the idea question, but my point was that no further analysis is necessary — i.e., I don’t have to study smurfs in-depth to know that it would be silly to believe in their existence. What’s irrational is the notion that it would be possible to do an in-depth study of every conceivable belief. There has to be a filter, otherwise we’d be paralyzed by nonsense.
The word “dogma” has several meanings. At any rate, I think you understood the point I was trying to make (that the Church prescribed beliefs and censored the opposition), and, if you are honest, you agree with me. So you seek refuge in the splitting of hairs.
Really? Because, if I were a Christian, I would care very deeply about what others thought. Specifically, I would want them to believe in Christ so that they could be spared the eternal torment of Hell. I’ve always found it strange the way you Christians, who claim compassion as their watchword, are so remarkably nonchalant about the prospect of a fellow human being suffering eternal torment.
Tony,
My criticism is not of the person who goes to a Christian blog to question Christianity, it’s assumptions, its evidences, its practice, or even its believers. My criticism is of the person who does so and doesn’t expect people to respond by refuting them, or by disagreeing with their criticisms.
I’m especially critical of the type of person who makes overtly inflammatory remarks, such as this…
…and then cries “foul” when people take them to task for their inability to rationally defend such positions.
From my view, it seems that the critic wants to be able to call the believer every name in the book, mock our beliefs, and sneer about our motivations and intellects, but gets extremely sensitive when the tables are turned and their own beliefs (or non-beliefs) are stridently questioned.
No one, least of all me, minds a strong challenge or a strong investigation, given that there’s some chance of learning or conveying something. What I do mind is the critic who has no interest in learning or considering anything at all, but who feels the need to be snide, and still gets a case of the sniffles when someone questions them.
Tony: Thanks for joining the discussion.
What’s interesting to me here is the misdirection that’s taken place, paying virtually no attention at all to the main point of the article I linked to, and turning the topic to other (real or supposed) errors of the medieval church.
Regarding those real and/or supposed errors: the church was not unique in its taking a stand for its views, nor was it unique for the way it handled disagreement—and this should be regarded as fact even by those who accept various myths about the medieval church (like the Galileo and Copernicus distortions). That was characteristic of the times.
The flat-earth myth, on the other hand, was a lie invented to smear the church. The lie has worked. The “war-against-science” myth was also a lie invented by Dickson White, by Draper, and probably also by others. Draper and Dickson White had definite agendas that they held more dear than the truth (there is plenty of documentation from here).
Further, there are strong arguments to be made that the church was unique, not a product of its times but a leader in its times, in the development of science and in the development of the university.
So why argue these other things? They are not the main thing. If the church was similar to its times in some things, then it was. If there are myths to be exposed (like the ones I’ve named here), then let’s expose them. But even those who believe those myths ought to have the wisdom to put them in context, and to see that what matters is the ways in which the church stood out from the world of its day.
@Jordan:
I’m sorry you don’t see more than you do in your everyday experience. I mean that in all honesty.
Jordan,
Then, as I said, you’re making an extremely convenient and ignorant reduction. There are many things in the world not at all within your experience that are very real, and you’re just trying to paint with a brush broad enough to keep you from digging in to what you don’t want to.
While this might explain bias on your part, it doesn’t do much to support your approach. That’s not much evidence to support the “war on science” any more than Mao’s rejection of the Big Bang is evidence that atheism is anti-science.
My contention is that you’re not even giving Christianity the “brief look”. People rolling out the “war on science” nonsense are not those who’ve really looked at that issue. Those who compare Christianity to leprechauns or smurfs aren’t, either. The point remains that there are factual and historical claims involved that deserve more than token interest. Quantum is total baloney, looked at briefly, in terms of my everyday experience. I guess I have no need to examine it further.
I brought up dogma for the reasons noted: you’re sort of criticizing a church for espousing official teachings. It’s especially bizarre coming from one espousing the “dogmatic” (in the modern sense) approach when it comes to what’s “nonsense” and what’s not.
No, as a believer I don’t care much what others think of me, per se. I especially don’t worry much about derision from one who doesn’t want to be reasonable, rational, or thoughtful in his approach to my faith. Would you expect Richard Dawkins to care much for the opinion of the person who said, “there are still monkeys…they haven’t all become men…so evolution is nonsense!” ?
I care for your eternal destination, but that care has to share space with a recognition that people really do choose their own paths. You’re making a particularly overt decision to reject Christianity without a good look, by your own admission. I can feel sympathy for your lost-ness, and at the same time I can reject and refute your attitude towards Christianity.
I also care for those who read but don’t speak in situations like this, and that concern means demonstrating in no uncertain terms just how flawed your approach, and how prejudiced your reasoning really is.
Tom,
I think there’s evidence of that phenomenon still happening today. A century or more ago, it was “the war of religion against science.” Now it’s the New-Atheist mantra of “faith contradictory to reason”, or “religion, the world’s biggest problem.”
Harris even said:
This, from a man who’s trying to be a scientist, and a critic of religion. Even when other atheists call him out for having a profound ignorance of the relationship between faith and reason, or religion and science, and so forth, he still persists.
That, I think, is when a position deserves to be called “a lie.”
I agree with Tom about getting the comments back on topic, though the sequence of responses has been an interesting read. I find it telling that no one has given any documented evidence to show that the overwhelming majority of educated medieval Christians did not believe that the Earth was spherical, which was the main point of the article.
We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.
…
What the denouncer of dogma really means is not that dogma is bad; but rather that dogma is too good to be true.
…
For the modern world will accept no dogmas upon any authority; but it will accept any dogmas on no authority.
…
Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.
- G.K. Chesterton
I’m not sure where you’ve gotten the idea that I have problem with people trying to refute my beliefs or making counterarguments when I try to refute theirs, or that I’m “extremely sensitive when the tables are turned,” or that I “get the sniffles” when someone questions me. I don’t. What I have a serious problem with is your misrepresentation of my views. I made the claim that it is ok to reject blatantly nonsensical ideas without studying them in depth, and you misrepresented that claim as “I’m not interested in looking at evidence for anything I’d rather not believe.”
Quantum mechanics looks at a world that is not part of your everyday experience — i.e., you don’t experience individual electrons. That’s why it warrants further study in spite of its apparent ridiculousness: There is nothing in your everyday experience that precludes quantum tunneling and the like (even though these things seem absurd). Now, if someone made similar claims about, say, hockey pucks (”Sometimes they pass right through the boards via puck-tunneling”), we wouldn’t have to analyze this claim in depth, since we know about the behavior of solid, macroscopic objects from our everyday experience, and the corroborative everyday experience of others. Likewise, I know, from everyday experience, that witches, unicorns, and Messiahs don’t exist (despite what the Bible says), and, more tentatively, that there is no loving, omnipotent God.
At any rate, Tom and Kendalf are right: I shouldn’t have derailed the original topic of Tom’s post. As to the so-called myth of the war between religion and science, and I suppose there are certain aspects of it that have been exagerated. However, you guys have to admit, there clearly are (and always have been) religions (including certain brands of Christianity) that are overtly opposed to the scientific mindset, and, even if the Catholic Church was better in this regard than most of its contemporaries, it has still come a long way over the centuries; and, the fact that progress has been made implies that there was progress to be made in the first place, especially in the realm of public discourse & free speech.
…without losing sight of the ways in which the Church didn’t stand out. The fact that other institutions, and not just the Church, were using censorship and threat of violence to quell dissent doesn’t absolve the Church any more than the widespread racism of previous generations absolves the racists. Wrong is wrong, in all times, and in all places.
Jordan,
I don’t see that this…
…is any different from this…
You’re more than intellectually capable of noting that not everything is suitably judged by “everyday experience”. Your choice to presume that historical Christian claims are easily rejected on such a casual basis is indefensible. That you continue to mention God in the same sentence as Smurfs or the Emperor’s Clothes doesn’t mean you’ve done anything to show how they’re so qualitatively similar. Like the assertion about quantum, it’s a false comparison.
I also can’t help but note that the experience of not knowing God can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, a person can choose to reject examining all evidence, since it’s “nonsense”, then turn right around and claim that they reject God as nonsense because they see no evidence.
The propagation of the “war on science” lie is a symptom of exactly that kind of mentality. Once it’s been told enough, it becomes a circular argument. “We know that religion has been hostile to science because we’ve been saying it for decades,” in essence.
There are many times and places where religion, including Christianity, has made some bad choices and gone down some wrong paths when it comes to science. But if we want to be really fair and honest, we have to note the balance being far more in favor of Christianity than against when it comes to scientific discovery. We also need to note that atheism, for one, has had some anti-progress bungles of its own, and recently.
“Wrong is wrong, in all times, and in all places.”
Whoa! Is that a “scientific” assertion (i.e., is it measurable, statistically describable, subject to mathematical or MES prediction, etc.)? If not, does it NECESSARILY mean then that the assertion is untrue?
Perhaps DL should take a lesson from Jordan when he (DL) condemns (quite hypocritically) faith in morally ABSOLUTIST terms while at the same not (quite hypocritically) applying his own scientistic rules of the game to such condemnations.
I can agree with that. We should not try to argue that the Church was or is perfect, or more accurately, that Christians representing the Church have always acted in accordance with the tenets of the Christian faith. Though Christians are supposed to represent Christ and act as God’s ambassadors, we don’t always do so.
The Inquisition was wrong, in the same way that the Soviet Gulag and the Chinese Cultural Revolution were wrong. Rather than comparing the actions of individuals or specific groups in history, what is more helpful is contrasting the foundational principles that support a particular belief system, and in this regard I think that Christianity stands out in a positive way from other worldviews for how its central doctrines favor and promote scientific discovery and progress.
It is, in fact, secular scientists who are doing the most to undermine science. Consider physicist (atheist) Singham at Case Western Reserve University claiming that “science doesn’t have to be true,” or evolutionist (atheist) Lewontin claiming an a priori commitment to materialism despite the problems a science-only approach entails and lack of support for materialism; or biochemist (atheist) Crick reducing everything to meaningless chemical interactions… including the scientific method. The irony would be sweet if it weren’t horrific: atheism kills millions and undermines science.
Speaking of the Inquisition/s.
http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2009/the-inquisition-part-1/
Oh, Barry doesn;t have the entire series linked from that post.
Here’s part 2.
http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2009/the-inquisition-part-2/
Here’s his blog, you can scroll the other parts.
http://withallyourmind.net
Tom,
Regarding your post I would say that this:
… is true but would agree that it is misleading. What I mean is that education, not religious teaching, is what distinguished flat-earthers from round ones. Because most European Christians in the time of Columbus were not well-educated, it follows that most would have thought that the world was flat. Certainly, though, educated Christians would have thought the world was a sphere.
I wouldn’t say that the Bible itself takes a clear and unambiguous position on the shape of the earth (round or flat), and certainly a lot of people have interpreted it to describe a flat earth. (It wasn’t Christianity, by the way, that led the educated to understand the world was a sphere; the ancient Greeks, certainly since the time of Aristotle, considered the world to be round.)
The criticism you quoted says that there wasn’t a “lick of truth” to the sentence that “European Christians thought the world was flat.” I’d say the correct answer lies somewhere between Boorsteins’s misleading quote, and Walker’s equally misleading criticism of it.