J ak is widely known, press releases, atheism today knows and does not believe. We also know that it is cooler than any theism, because to him the way of science. He knows the difference between a potential energy, the kinetic effects that unifies the standard model, as the theory of evolution called the common apomorphine. True, it is obvious to any militant, armed with a scientific worldview, an atheist? Crudely-media and anti-clerical, as opposed to the conscious, atheism is disgusted with the information and unproven to be believed. This domain of theists, a sheep with the brains of fantasies and fables przeoranymi the flying teapot. This differs from zindoktrynowanych believe that his knowledge is scientific, verified, validated and methodologically. O-current-k-ty-wna! No dogma.
In e too, that science has always been in conflict with faith, which can serve a ball from the hand of many examples. And this knowledge presented a shocking article about the founder of Hawking's confession that God is not stated in the Newsweek Fri Excess God. When the shock has passed, and the dyspnea resolved, crushed the reader can expand his horizons with a separate section of the main text, in the form of frames, entitled not believe . It presents a brief history of the oppressed of science, which is in constant conflict with faith.
worth a closer look, because in some cases a collection of classic allegations of militant atheism, and this, as already mentioned, he abhors the dogma, does not give anything to be believed and is not based on non-scientific fencing and defamation.
1600. Dies at the stake of Giordano Bruno - philosopher and scientist considered a heretic. Proclaims the Copernicus that the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa, but also goes a step further. Contrary to the beliefs and doctrine of the Church the Polish astronomer believes that the universe is infinite. Also claims that Jesus was a man, not God.
K elephant with a row plus a sugar cube for the person who provides any scientific work Bruno. Any treaty methodologically consistent with the values \u200b\u200bon which modern science was founded. The fact that Bruno was a scientist, working in pop culture as a clear evidence and entered the vocabulary of modern intellectual. And while we have entered and anointed with the scientific worldview, it is already excluded from the definition of all mental processes, which unnecessarily encumber valuable, because not marred by religious fantasies, mind (it's not malice - it's a verbatim quote of the holder of that reason.)
K hen Giordano Bruno in the tour moves across Europe, the emerging life sciences have had their representatives in the persons of Copernicus, Brach, Kepler, and Galileo. Although not entirely liberated from the mental conditions of his time (As a matter of fact came after Newton's death), are treated on the founders of modern style of doing science.
The success of their research, which eventually plunged the Aristotelian way of looking at reality, decided by the initial assumptions.
most important is the recognition mathematicity nature, understood as the ability of its mathematical description. This is another step by grasping the rationality of what they did long before Copernicus (for example, a model universe consisting of the world over and podksiężycowego, with its seven spheres was a logical and consistent "everyday experiences").
There has been a revolutionary shift from descriptive models, based on quality, the mathematical model - quantitative. Mathematical model in contrast to the qualitative began to "count", instead of describing, he began to "act" giving a prediction, rather than artificially adjust to the next observation. Mathematics became the founder of a scientific revolution. In conjunction with the observation of nature, and gave mankind a powerful weapon and resulted in an unprecedented technological leap.
A perceive mathematics as a scientist Bruno Jordan? What's your view of reality based? Certainly not on mathematics. Did not accept this fact and denied her any value! The work La valuable delle CENER and explicitly states that he has a bad Copernicus, that the cities to philosophize on the nature, plays in mathematics, following in the footsteps of Ptolemy, Hipparchus and Eudoxus. His distaste associated with mathematics resulted from the adoption of ontologies. He expressed the three treaties cosmology: De l'infinito universo e mondi , De la causa principio , e uno and wspomianych price. sketches a vision of where the "new philosophy, specifically neo-Platonic, which is absolutely infinite (" the whole infinite "and" absolutely infinite ") God, by virtue of its qualities is not in any relation to the material world. And since they are left with is an infinite world of being a "shadow of God" is not to embrace the tools of the finite human intellect. The only thing he is is an attempt to overwhelming reason speculative metaphysical intellect by which we learn of "substance" and "the nature of things." We do this either by innate ideas, or by syllogisms contained in the original premise. So we recognize the "physical matter" and "matter disembodied, we understand that the earth has a sensual and rational soul, we realize that the planets are the angels, and that there is reincarnation, and the observation of the senses and not too much for us to pass," since infinity can not be the object of sensory perception "( De l'infinito ... ).
If that reasoning, do not associate much with my colleagues - scientists such as Kepler Bruno, who, through the tedious mathematical calculations, rejects "the souls of the planets," replacing them with solar magnetism and elliptical orbits, it's good not to associate.
K oil important value on which modern science was based on this assumption idealization, approximation, simplification, isolation of certain structures, for the purpose of modeling. And humanly speaking - does not take to grips with the world in all its complexity, because we follow the path of Aristotle - the scientific aspect is subordinated to the "top-down philosophical system. And all will fall under the weight of physicality wish it all together (were favorable susceptible to modification of the rules of his system of philosophical terms such as potentiality, matter and form, the four elements, the doctrine of natural place, etc).
We follow a different path - starting from the maximum simplification fragment of reality to fit the problem to the method, not a problem for philosophy (Newton).
J ak is the assumption that Bruno academic achievements? Nohow. And specifically - exactly the opposite. As the creator of the "new philosophy", restorer of "secret", "initiation", "magic" of knowledge, giving him authority over the people, appears as a "magician-philosopher" using "key physiognomic" ( Cantus circeus ) "'angel of light" sent by the gods to restore the ancient wisdom to' restore 'youth of the world, tying a knot in the' right ',' truth ', religion, politics and philosophy "( Dialoghi italiani ). Methodologically continues the best traditions of magical divination Gnostic and Egyptian, and the foundation of values \u200b\u200bupon which modern science is born - contests. His system has the same disadvantages as the outgoing Aristotelianism - it is purely qualitative, speculative and abstract, nohow falsifiable.
Science in the execution of Bruno would be a dreary negation, technically, would hold up in the seventeenth century, the central character Bruno - Messiah and the final donor law. No text messages, mejli, computers, only pigeons postal carriages, dirt and diseases treated by Gnostic rites of prayers zanoszonymi to matter "universal" with the creative force of change.
S kad therefore these odium of science in the works of Bruno? Tells us is the author of the statement - "says the Copernicus that the earth revolves around the Sun" and "that the universe is infinite."
If this argument is to provide the scientific method, that brings us to an otherwise fascinating conclusions. For example, the evolution of each of today's fan is automatically a scientist. Simply. Does not need to understand, and what fun - maybe kontestować, like Bruno, the scientific tools (do not accept the math and genetics). Just that verbally for her to tell. And voila - now falls to him to look for an academic.
Such reasoning is accompanied przypinaniu patches scientist Giordano Bruno. Bruno takes the Copernican theory, not because they understood the mathematical brilliance (his copy About Revolution ... briskly signed but did not carry any trace of use marginaliów example, typical of the readers). Nor that it was confirmed empirically. As a critic of mathematicians, justifying the theory of absolutely do not care. Treats it purely instrumental - the traffic circulation and the Earth's rotation he fits perfectly to his philosophy of continuous change of matter ( La price ....) To the atomism, which he confessed.
And that's it.
Bruno is not a proponent of scientific heliocentrism - is its Gnostic and magical fanboy. Without substantive knowledge and without any claim to prove it.
Another element - "infinity of the universe" - Is the same. Infinity stemmed not from the scientific aspirations of Bruno, it's not mathematical infinity, but the magical-hermetic. Pure coincidence verbal word "indefinitely" in modern astronomy and the myths Bruno testifies not about scientific connotations of our magician, but the ignorance of people who are science it on a pedestal.
more that Giordano Bruno was not the first who introduced to cosmology, the term "currently in the infinite universe." He was John Major (d. 1550) and later Thomas Digges. What differs them from Bruno, the fact that they were not antyklerykałami and died at the stake. So they were boring.
Being a consistent believer in purely verbal convergence, it is now given scientific status in the history of the Catholic Church, which disagreed with Bruno, that the heavenly bodies are the angels, or the intelligence of the Earth, appears to be the guardian of the concerned scientific truths .
tussle with the information in the quoted passage zaserwowanej may also suggest that the scientific ideas of Giordano Bruno was hailed as a heretic. Nothing could be more wrong. Of the eight complaints (ie censorship), which were presented to him from 1599 r, six regarding theological and philosophical issues (the other is the motion of the Earth and the infinity of the universe). Giordano Bruno was a Dominican and a staunch anticlerical trial was too dangerous for the views of the then status quo, from which part of the cosmological (as mentioned above - specifically and not scientifically understood) was secondary.
course anyone sentenced to death for the views is shameful and deplorable. But tuning in pen humanist and completely ignores the mentality moralizer of those times where faith was a bulwark of the rule of law, sanction power, and social justice. Just like today, democracy - for violations of democratic values \u200b\u200bsuch as human freedom, tolerance, civil rights goes to prison. In the Middle Ages, with its different hierarchy of values \u200b\u200band a brutal secular judiciary (courts inquisitorial to him not umywały) - you could lose your life. It is worth remembering, when studying the history of some of the facts omits a full understanding silence, and the other holy cause outrage Moral and shortness of breath.
In flow on contemporary Giordano Bruno was low. Mersenne, one of the initiators of scientific exchanges with the seventeenth century, struck out with its list of scientists, not appreciated it very French Encyclopaedists. Gained fame only in the nineteenth century, the wave of anticlerical speaking and Italian aspirations for independence.
course can be regarded as a visionary, you can admire his fortitude and steadfastness in the face of death. But it should also win with a bit of scientific objectivity and admit that a scientist was none. His teaching is a combination of divination, gnosis and neo-Platonism. If not for his tragic death at the stake, would share the fate of a lot of his peers, which in those days there was no shortage. He would have been simply forgotten.
1616. Congregation of the Inquisition, Cardinal entered in the "Index of prohibited books" On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres "Nicolaus Copernicus. The work shall be deemed to be heretical, though at first the Church of a book published in 1543 does not comment officially.
About Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres has not been considered heretical. Never. This is another "obvious truth" and as "a scientist Bruno," or "flat Earth in średniowiowieczu" functioned as the equivalent of levitation teapot atheists. Although a vague equivalent, in many similar cases, at least half levitates household appliances.
Typing of the item on the index, the common perception, most often associated with the crowd zaślinionej hate fat, burning books, including the author, clandestine, where participants, carrying the torch of progress, risking their lives to give, somewhere in zakonspirowanej, secret cave, Batman, spiritualized reading. And merely reading banned, condemned, absolutely not acceptable to the jealous of their influence of the clergy. So much for the fairy tale.
work of Copernicus, appearing on the list did not receive either clause Damnata (condemned) or Prohibit (forbidden). Intentionally or (of which enjoyed the Galileo in his letters) has not been called a heretic, as many wanted to contemporary. Received the third clause-s uspensum donec corrigatur , which meant "the suspension until the introduction of amendments." Amendments related to the deletion of sentences, which presented heliocentrism as fact rather than theory. Changes are not introduced inkwizytorska secret police, which flowed at 6 am, that "no one does not expect", introduced them to the holders of books themselves. They took the pen and gently, like Galileo, so as not to obliterate kreślonego text - put up a stroke on a few sentences. The fact that some do not want and no one could force them to be wanted. Such a Galileo, for this example, we'd like. His many buddies from Italy - just (about ⅔ of the accounts). But the rest of the Western world completely ignored the recommendation, regarding them as an internal affair of the Italian. I do not mean that a Protestant country - in Catholic countries such as Spain, and France has been found virtually no revised book About Revolution ... What is more, and the wickedness of many mitomanom, English (This is the worst possible - the English Inquisition) version of the Index, explicitly allows for the use of the work of Copernicus! Stacks are not burned. Wywlekania majtach people in the market, nor uświadczono.
"On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres" discharged from the Index on .... 1620, four years after its type. On the Index remained unamended version.
Anticipating objections - the above argument does not attempt apology for the Church, his interference was evident. But in light of contemporary knowledge, the dominant philosophical paradigm, emerging only the natural sciences, culture funcjonującego authority at that time, the opposition, put down the Aristotelian-Thomistic lobby, the Reformation - it does not seem to be any realistic alternative. Do not change the fact that writing a heresy of Copernicus, it's still a pop culture Bajania, create reality, rather than a reliable reconstruction.
1633. For life is sentenced to house arrest by the Inquisition Italian astronomer Galileo for the publication of "Dialogue and the two major systems of the world - and kopernikowym ptolemeuszowym, supporting the heliocentric view of the world. His work goes to the "Index of prohibited books" from which is removed only in 1835.
T obvious example of strength to use the authority of the Church. Galileo sentenced to a canonical (recitation of psalms week 7, which then refuses to be his daughter), living first in the gardens of Tuscany embassy in Rome, then at the residence of his friend Archbishop Piccolomini and his own villa. It creates more and it seems, although his work is Copernican inhibited for obvious reasons. As for the elimination of its Dialogue - does not appear in the new edition of the Index from 1835 r, but officially his work, with the approval of the Church, is issued (effort printer seminar Padua) 1744, already - but bear the corresponding annotation.
K oil painting event, according to the author's statement, is the emergence of Darwin and his theory of evolution. Ferment which was then, according to the text, another example of tensions between the science - religion. We go over the agenda. Interesting and presents the next event:
1925. Before the Tennessee state court is 24-year-old teacher John Scopes, accused of illegal teaching of evolutionary theory. (...) The Defender asked the prosecutor, among others here is where Cain took a wife, since the only woman in the world was Eve. This was to demonstrate the inconsistency of religious point of view, (...).
C iekawym author's treatment is to show the conflict of science - religion at the level of criticism of the Bible - science. In other words, every critic of the Bible, automatically become the representative of science and should be immortalized in the statement which deals with clashes between science and religion. The problem is superficial (that is, and how awful - unscientific) approach the issue - the alleged "inconsistency of a religious point of view" is just an inconsistency arising from ignornacji of criticizing the Bible's teachings. The thing is perfectly clarified, inconsistencies no, thanks to the development of science. This passage should therefore be included within the tension between science and the scientific dilettantes.
course there is the problem of a judicial ruling on the veracity of scientific theories. But this is not an issue of science and religion, but science and concepts of functioning and effectiveness of the state, which allows you to confuse the natural sciences, the ideologies, the legal confusion, the public, with elements of the outlook and privacy. This applies not only religion, but the various sorts of other issues, ideology, political concepts, etc., which are likely to proceed the broad waters of public discourse whenever the permit is unsealed, vague framework for the functioning of the state.
N The next example cited in the article refers to the former - an indication of Freud, which calls for the abandonment of "harmful illusion of religion" and replacing it with "the image of the mind caught up in desires, fears and traumas." This is a classic confusion of levels, personal views on metaphysics, with the authority of science, which by definition is not metaphysics. And again, as before, Freud is a scientific fact has been anointed as his act of criticism religion.
1960. British scientist Francis Circk (...) considers itself an agnostic, takes a job at Churchill College, Cambridge, provided that there will not be built chapel. Several years later, the university authorities affect donation intended for the construction of the chapel (...). Crick resigns.
P rzypominam - the thing is about the mutual tension between religion and science, and yet again serves up the tension between science and one's worldview. Scheme is simple - Mr. Crick did not agree to the chapel, because it reconciles apparently, in his view, the authority of science. As a scientist and does not agree, it will automatically science itself, which is a representative, disagrees. And we have another conflict and another point in the religion versus science wyliczance.
And another example of ideological understanding of science, which is wrong (objectively) the result of research with its interpretation in the framework of one's (subjective) beliefs. If you Crick'owi sphere does not correspond to the sacred, it does not mean anything else that he does not respond. The existence of the chapel does nothing affects the methodology of scientific research. As a symbol, but affects the realm of beliefs on faith, or unbelief. The joke lies in the fact that science has not only failed to assess the validity of these specific issues of metaphysical, AT ALL, it does not see the problem. In its methodology, it does not exist. Instead, there is a belief. And there are scores of publications erroneous assessment of the scientific worldview.
Is the author an example served to the researcher, who bet that the chapel does not interfere, and indeed przeciwinie - happy, means that science supports religion? Well no, probably responsible, are two separate issues. And good answers. So why such opposite serves as an argument conflict, since it no longer serves a counter-argument, or thesis is the reverse? What is the value of an argument with someone else's worldview, which by definition contains unscientific, untestable, unverifiable, because based on metaphysics, ontology, and epistemological issues, based on a principle of faith? Agnosticism Mr Crick is subject to scientific validation?
U tożsamianie worldview of the researcher, the same methodology of natural science is a misuse and misunderstanding of the grounds on which it is founded. This misunderstanding is making itself felt whenever such attempts to people to push that to have a scientific worldview and accept the theory of evolution, one must be an atheist, or, ultimately, an agnostic.
T misunderstanding that echoes the last point regarding the issue of an imaginary God Dawkins, in which the author notes that "from the standpoint of science the existence of God is extremely unlikely." Quoted passage is from the standpoint of research methodology is to babble. This is a purely philosophical argument, not scientific, which is added to the authority, suggesting that it is based on scientific considerations. Dawkins is a great popularizer of science, but God Delusion is not a scientific book, but the average quality of allocution affairs of what is Dawkinsowi appears on religion and philosophy. And it seems to him often falsely, because either poorly philosophizes, or, as an intelligent, well aware of these deficiencies, but the "end justifies the means" sincerely believed in his mission, so allow yourself to crude generalizations and mixing levels. Faithful and just to adopt without a murmur and analysis.
with chronicle obligation, it should be noted that a further two points counting the author's concern Templeton Prize and John Paul II's apology for the process of Galileo.
C of us is from the famous introduction in which the author writes that "the coexistence of science and religion only occasionally was a peaceful"? The dispute and the heliocentric theory of Darwin. Statistically very poorly as the 400 years of modern science. The rest is a combination of pop culture myths and misunderstanding of the idea of \u200b\u200bscience.
better that the author went out, and even volume would utuczył if he as a tension between science and ideologies - such as the Bolshevik, or National Socialism. Broad scope for the war as it looks, numerous victims, the persecution of unparalleled size AIW tępionych theories can pick - from physics and cosmology, genetics, economics, and linguistics. Only if it is not very trendy, uninteresting by definition, is not it?
0 comments:
Post a Comment