Cornelius Hunter has a particularly odd post up, called: More Warfare Thesis Lies, This Time From CNN. He takes issue with a report by Florence Davey-Attlee, on Vatican seeks to rebrand its relationship with science. His complaint is that it promotes what he calls “the false Warfare Thesis, which pits religion against science” and “is too powerful and alluring to allow the truth to get in the way”. He writes:
The key to a good lie is to leverage the truth as much as possible. In this instance, we have two truths juxtaposed to make a lie. You see Bruno did argue for an infinite universe, and he was burned at the stake. But those are two distinct and separate facts. The implication is that the Church burned Bruno at the stake because of his scientific investigations about the universe—a perfect example of the Warfare Thesis.
Well, I don’t know of any “Warfare Thesis”, but let’s suppose that there is one, and let’s suppose that it consists of the notion that the church has a history of suppressing science. What does Florence Davey-Atlee cite? Well, first she cites Galileo (not mentioned by Hunter). The church threatened Galileo with torture and sentenced to life-time house arrest. For what? For considering it probable that the Earth moves round the sun, not the other way round, despite the fact that the Holy See had proclaimed the view as being contrary to Holy Scripture. Sounds like the church suppressing science to me.
She then says:
Galileo’s fate was very different from that of other scientists at the time of the Inquisition. Some were executed for threatening the church’s teachings. Italian astronomer Giordano Bruno, an Italian philosopher who argued that the universe was infinite, was burned at the stake.
Of course Hunter only quotes that last sentence. It is true that the church did not put Bruno to death by burning at the stake on the grounds of his non-orthodox science. They probably burned him because of his non-orthodox religious views. So I guess that’s alright then. No science suppression there.
The rest of her article is about climate change research (which the church appears not to oppose), stem cell research (which it does), and contraception (which it considers the wrong way to combat HIV/AIDS) and IVF (which it considers an improper form of procreation).
Well, I wasn’t so convinced that the church was at war with science before, but I am starting to think now that the Warfare Thesis may have some merit after all. But be that as it may – what sort of person objects to a report that mistakenly accuses the church of burning a man for science, when in fact they burned him for “heresy”?
What sort of moral lesson are we expected to draw about religion here?
As several of us have said, the reliability of personal experience is precisely what science addresses. The methodologies of science, however imperfect, attempt to regularize experience and produce explanatory frameworks.
Indeed, and it’s easier than some might think. At the risk of sounding like a woo peddler I, a science and engineering educated atheist, have had “transcendent” (for lack of a better term) experiences during meditation. Holotropic breathing was particularly intense, but similar, shorter mediations such as Quantum Light Breath[*] reliably lead to altered states of consciousness.
[*] I encourage you to ignore misuse of scientific terms in the name and give it a try.
Exactly how does an invalid statement about the reason for Bruno’s persecution amount to the refutation of Darwinism; furthermore, the corroboration of Intelligent Design?
I think it was Pratchett who said the IQ of a mob is equal to the low lowest IQ of all its members divided by the number of people in the mob.