Intellectual Humility: A Guiding Principle For The Skeptical Movement?

[Belacqua]

It fully opposes science that challenges it's claims.

You should avoid glittering generalities and strawmen.


Sometimes some religious people oppose such science, and sometimes they don't. The case of Galileo has become a popular myth among some atheists, repeated as evidence of things that never happened.

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah, if only atheists could understand the inquisition.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I didn't know there was a "Skeptical Movement". Where do I go to sign up?

If you eat more skeptical fibre, you'll have more regular skeptical movements.

Boru

[Ranjr]

You should avoid glittering generalities and strawmen.


Sometimes some religious people oppose such science, and sometimes they don't. The case of Galileo has become a popular myth among some atheists, repeated as evidence of things that never happened.

Religions do in fact oppose science that challenges it's views.  That is observable.  Religious people, as you shifted terminology, may not be aware of science that challenges their beliefs, which I why I didn't imagine, as you do, what they think.  To say the Inquisition didn't happen and Galileo was not kept under house arrest shows willful ignorance.  It only took the Church 350 years to admit it's mistake.  There is hope for you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Seems to me that intellectual humility is far more likely to win over the faith heads than professed certainty

If this were true, then it would be difficult to explain those faithheads.  People who did not, in fact, go with the guy serving intellectual humility.  

Just food for thought.

[Belacqua]

Religions do in fact oppose science that challenges it's views.  That is observable.  

 
Some do and some don't. Religion is a big category. 

More importantly, science is incompatible with theology far less than some people suppose.

Religious people, as you shifted terminology, may not be aware of science that challenges their beliefs, which I why I didn't imagine, as you do, what they think. 

I shifted the terminology because "religion" is an abstract noun. Opposition or support is carried out by people. 

Within Christianity, for example, there is an extremely wide range of views. 

I don't have to imagine what they think, as I have read what they wrote. I'm careful to limit what I say about Christian views to what Christians have said.

To say the Inquisition didn't happen and Galileo was not kept under house arrest shows willful ignorance.  

I didn't say there was no inquisition and I didn't say Galileo wasn't under house arrest. So you are accusing me falsely. 

The comic book version of the Galileo trial which has been repeated as evidence that religion is intrinsically opposed to science is largely false. It was a unique case, was due largely to stubbornness and personality conflict on both sides, and included far more than mere opposition to new science. Galileo had many supporters in the Vatican. 

The best book I know of is this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Search-B...=241582011

which you may pirate here:

Administrator Notice
Link removed

A brief description of the facts of the case is here:

https://triedgeart.wordpress.com/2013/05...sm-affair/

The "conflict thesis," which imagines that science and religion are intrinsically opposed, was 19th century historiography. It doesn't hold up to an examination of the facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

Here is a partial list of Catholic clergymen who made a significant contribution to math or science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ca...scientists

I was particularly interested in the group called the Oxford Calculators, a group of theology professors in the 14th century who used advanced math and empirical experiment to show that some of what Aristotle said about motion was incorrect. They were burned at the stake, of course. No they weren't, they had long successful careers in the church. When avid Christian Isaac Newton said that he stood on the shoulders of giants, these are some of the giants he had in mind.

[Fake Messiah]

The comic book version of the Galileo trial which has been repeated as evidence that religion is intrinsically opposed to science is largely false. It was a unique case, was due largely to stubbornness and personality conflict on both sides, and included far more than mere opposition to new science.

Galileo was stubborn?

Here is a partial list of Catholic clergymen who made a significant contribution to math or science:

So what? This doesn't prove Catholicism is pro science.
You can't be pro science because you are only sometimes pro some science and forbid all other science that you don't like because it conflicts with your anti science magic book, and also, at the same time, promote pseudoscience (like exorcism, faith healing, creationism in any form, carpenter walking on water). Just like someone can't be a historian if he denies that holocaust happened and claims how faeries and giants lived in the past. Or someone can't be a geographer just because he acknowledges existence of Europe and Asia, but denies existence of Africa, and also claims Lemuria exists.

When avid Christian Isaac Newton said that he stood on the shoulders of giants, these are some of the giants he had in mind.

Not even remotely, here's what James Gleick wrote:

"Isaac Newton said he had seen farther by standing on the shoulders of giants, but he did not believe it. He was born into a world of darkness, obscurity, and magic; led a strangely pure and obsessive life, lacking parents, lovers, and friends; quarreled bitterly with great men who crossed his path; veered at least once to the brink of madness; cloaked his work in secrecy; and yet discovered more of the essential core of human knowledge than anyone before or after."

https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/02/16...of-giants/

[Belacqua]

"The medical art was sent from God for the saving of human life." The teaching of the church, Gregory [of Nyssa] argued elsewhere, not only permitted but commanded research into medicine and physiology, including the use of dissection.

Jaroslav Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture; the Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism, pg. 102

[The Valkyrie]

"The medical art was sent from God for the saving of human life." The teaching of the church, Gregory [of Nyssa] argued elsewhere, not only permitted but commanded research into medicine and physiology, including the use of dissection.

Jaroslav Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture; the Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism, pg. 102

But there's a reason I took the Hippocratic oath and not the Jesus Oath at medschool.

[Belacqua]

But there's a reason I took the Hippocratic oath and not the Jesus Oath at medschool.

I suspect that's because whoever wrote the oath originally did a really good job. So when Europe became Christian, and the education was mostly done by Christians, they were happy to keep it. The oldest known copy of the oath is in the Vatican Library.

There used to be a theory that scientific research shut down after the fall of Rome -- that Greece and Rome were scientific rational societies and then that all fell apart. Professional historians no longer hold this view. 

First, it ignores the fact that Greek and Roman culture was frequently irrational and unscientific. More importantly, it ignores the continued discoveries being made throughout what used to be called the "Dark Ages." Medieval Europe wasn't nearly as benighted as some people have alleged. 

This is a widely-read book on the subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Beginnings-Wester...VE4KQ458DQ

This one is useful as well:

https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Science-C...oks&sr=1-3

And this one is getting good advanced word from people in the field:

https://www.amazon.com/Light-Ages-Surpri...oks&sr=1-2

It's true that scientific research picked up after the Renaissance. There are different theories about why this happened. One thing we can be sure of is that the feudal economic system of the middle ages, based on land ownership, did little to encourage research, since the rich stayed rich without technological improvements. This changed when capitalism re-centered economic power, toward those who used their money wisely to build a better mousetrap. The combination of capitalism, science, and Protestantism created a virtuous circle which encouraged and justified innovation. 

The debate within Christianity over how personal initiative should be rewarded, and how this prompted a great deal of advance in technical knowledge, is described in both 

https://www.amazon.com/Secular-Age-Charl...oks&sr=1-1

and 

https://www.amazon.com/Enchantments-Mamm...oks&sr=1-1

The latter is particularly good on the differing views among Christians -- there was a great deal of disagreement and debate.