Teacher fired for saying Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally

[Reaper]

Damn, now I see why we can't have religious discussion on this site. People here are WAY too sensitive about it here. I say we just lock this topic.

[swansont]

Not if you ask about half the posters in this thread, swansont. They seem to think that it's exactly the same thing, and that it's exactly what we should be doing in the classroom, regardless of what this teacher may or may not have done.

 

I never got that impression from this thread. I've read several posts, though, correcting the strawman equating "X should not be taken literally" with "Your religion is false."

[Pangloss]

I never got that impression from this thread.

 

You know what, I've just reviewed the thread, and I have to agree -- you're right. There's only one poster in this thread who has consistently maintained the point of view that religion must be stamped out and defeated, and nobody from EITHER side of the "teacher" debate seems to agree with him. I think some posters (like iNow) are selectively ignoring him, but I can understand that. People tend to ignore replies from people whom they largely agree with and focus on replies from people they largely disagree with. And I forgot that several pages back people took issue with him and agreed with what I was saying about common courtesy and respect in the classroom.

 

At any rate, I apologize if my personal disagreement with that one poster has disrupted an otherwise pleasant conversation.

[bascule]

There's only one poster in this thread who has consistently maintained the point of view that religion must be stamped out and defeated

 

Who was that?

[JohnB]

So you're claiming e.g. the fact that Galileo was right doesn't enter into the historical discussion at all? That the motives are different when suppressing fact vs fiction isn't a part of the larger picture?

Yes and No.

 

When studying a conflict from a historical perspective the motives are important but whether the motives are right or wrong isn't. In any conflict both sides believe that they are right and the conflict must be studied from that POV.

 

Motives must be studied from the POV of the attitudes of the times not a later perspective. In the 21st Century we know the church was wrong in their ideas and their persecution of Galileo but our knowledge and opinion don't count. In the 17th Century the church didn't know it was wrong and acted on the presumption that they were right and their actions must be studied in that light.

 

Our later view as to who was right or wrong adds nothing to the study of any past conflict. Australia was colonised in 1788. Was this right or wrong? Does our opinion effect the fact of the colonisation in any way? No. Our opinion is utterly irrelevent to the historical study.

 

Because of this, any comment by the Lecturer about the factual content of the Bible (his 21st Century perspective) is irrelevent to the study of the conflict. It will add nothing to the understanding of the conflict and only serves to push the Lecturers own particular ideological barrow.

 

See what I'm getting at?

[swansont]

Yes and No.

 

When studying a conflict from a historical perspective the motives are important but whether the motives are right or wrong isn't. In any conflict both sides believe that they are right and the conflict must be studied from that POV.

 

Motives must be studied from the POV of the attitudes of the times not a later perspective. In the 21st Century we know the church was wrong in their ideas and their persecution of Galileo but our knowledge and opinion don't count. In the 17th Century the church didn't know it was wrong and acted on the presumption that they were right and their actions must be studied in that light.

 

Our later view as to who was right or wrong adds nothing to the study of any past conflict. Australia was colonised in 1788. Was this right or wrong? Does our opinion effect the fact of the colonisation in any way? No. Our opinion is utterly irrelevent to the historical study.

 

Because of this, any comment by the Lecturer about the factual content of the Bible (his 21st Century perspective) is irrelevent to the study of the conflict. It will add nothing to the understanding of the conflict and only serves to push the Lecturers own particular ideological barrow.

 

See what I'm getting at?

 

Motives being "right" or "wrong" is a separate argument — there is no objective basis to that. Galileo being right or wrong does have an objective basis. It's a verifiable fact, not an opinion. (The colonization of Australia is a bad analogy, unless you are contending that some people deny that Australia was colonized.) I don't think a teacher would be out of line if he explained that the church was wrong and didn't acknowledge it until only recently. Likewise, there are a number of other events where science calls into question a literal interpretation of the Bible, and these events had effects on history. Noting that this is not merely a difference of opinion is relevant.

[JohnB]

Swansont, I see where you are coming from and agree with most of what you say and you bring up a good point.

I don't think a teacher would be out of line if he explained that the church was wrong and didn't acknowledge it until only recently.

Certainly not, the changing position of the church and it's reversal of policy re Galileo would be germane to a historical course on Western Civilization. Especially since the move away from the literal interpretation of the Bible did much to lessen the church's opposition to scientific progress.

 

Calling the Bible a myth is however out of line because that is an opinion. In any conflict, both sides can prove their case to their own satisfaction. From a historical context, that is the starting point for motives, right or wrong doesn't enter into it.

 

The Australia analogy was a bad one, perhaps a physics one is better. (I hope you'll pardon me if I exaggerate in (most) places. )

 

Steady v Big Bang. Two competing theories. All that a course on the history of physics can say about the debate is this.

 

"The original theory was Steady State. The Big Bang theory was put forward in opposition and the arguments were often loud, long and acrimonious. Eventually the evidence in favour of the Big Bang theory became so overwhelming that it became the accepted theory and Steady State was dropped, with it's proponents joining the Big Bang camp."

 

A course on the history of physics cannot say;

 

"The original theory was Steady State. The Big Bang theory was put forward in opposition and the arguments were often loud, long and acrimonious. The adherents of the Steady State theory based their arguments on faulty mathematics and their papers were works of fiction and myth. This is true because later mounting evidence showed the Big Bang theory correct. (And even the proponents of Steady State now agree this is so.)"

 

From what I've read the Lecturer involved was essentially taking the second option, he should have taken the first.

Motives being "right" or "wrong" is a separate argument — there is no objective basis to that. Galileo being right or wrong does have an objective basis.

Motives in a conflict are neither right nor wrong, they just are. The reasons behind the motives can be right or wrong but that is irrelevent to the study of historical conflict. Galileo thought he was right, the church thought they were right, that was the cause of the conflict. The fact that Galileo was proven to be right has no bearing on the actions of the church at that time.

 

History can be an amazingly dispassionate science. You can study who did what to whom and when. You can look at the motives and the reasons behind those motives. You also realise that the right or wrong of the reasons is actually irrelevent. Objective reality v Myth or Myth v Myth is the same because in a conflict both sides believe their reasons are "right". Reasons and motives shape the course of the conflict, not the right and wrong of the reasons.

 

We humans tend to look back and often belittle our forebearers; "How could they possibly be so dumb as to believe that? I mean, it's obviously false." A thousand years from now, students studying the history of physics may be saying the same thing about Relativity.

[iNow]

I'm kind of picking on you because I was such a vocal opponent of religion and christianity, in particular, for much of my adult life until recently. I realized that my bias is not rooted in logic like I had allowed myself to believe, but rather I was pissed at "Hypochristians" and allowing them to spoil the pot.

 

Truth is, I do despise religion. But I can't trust that because it is an emotion - not a logical conclusion. Based on the facts, I can't justify my aversion to religion. And I refuse to jump on any bandwagon that can't either.

 

These words help me understand your position as well. Thank you. So you and others are aware, when I say "religion," I intend a scope far beyond just that of Christianity. I'd be curious to learn more about your experience, as it sounds pretty powerful, but perhaps another thread. Namaste.

[ParanoiA]

These words help me understand your position as well. Thank you. So you and others are aware, when I say "religion," I intend a scope far beyond just that of Christianity. I'd be curious to learn more about your experience, as it sounds pretty powerful, but perhaps another thread. Namaste.

 

Cool. Glad we could clear that up. And don't worry, I did infer that you meant basically all religions when using the term "religion".

[bascule]

Calling the Bible a myth is however out of line

 

When did anyone call the Bible a myth save for the atheist commentator in the article whose comment begins "I don't know the circumstances, but..."

 

Galileo thought he was right, the church thought they were right, that was the cause of the conflict. The fact that Galileo was proven to be right has no bearing on the actions of the church at that time.

 

So you think it would be wrong for a professor to frame Galileo in the light of 20/20 hindsight to make a point about shifting authority of knowledge away from religion towards science? That's what I see this professor as doing. No teacher these days would (or at least should) place the authority of the church ahead of science and claim the solar system is geocentric. In Galileo's time that was really the only option. Galileo's was a case where science usurped authority about the way the world works that was previously the Church's.

 

I see nothing wrong with saying the Church was wrong. They've since admitted they were were wrong. They've since come out against creationism/ID (at least the Vatican). How is this teacher doing anything that the Vatican hasn't already?

 

History should not be taught in a vacuum, and proper perspectives on it cannot be obtained until decades after the fact. Providing context in the form of modern knowledge and trends perpetuating from a major historical event is an essential part of comprehending it.

[JohnB]

When did anyone call the Bible a myth save for the atheist commentator in the article whose comment begins "I don't know the circumstances, but..."

I've reread and you are indeed correct. If the teacher involved did not say the Bible was a myth I withdraw my comments, if he did I'll have to let them stand. (How in hell we'd find out which way it was, I have no idea.)

So you think it would be wrong for a professor to frame Galileo in the light of 20/20 hindsight to make a point about shifting authority of knowledge away from religion towards science? That's what I see this professor as doing.

Hmmm. Considering I said;

In a historical discussion of a conflict between science and the church it is relevent to say that one side believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible and the other did not. What each side did, who the major players were and what the result of the conflict was (and how it affected later conflicts) are also relevent.

and

Certainly not, the changing position of the church and it's reversal of policy re Galileo would be germane to a historical course on Western Civilization. Especially since the move away from the literal interpretation of the Bible did much to lessen the church's opposition to scientific progress.

I don't see how you have misconstrued my position.

No teacher these days would (or at least should) place the authority of the church ahead of science and claim the solar system is geocentric.

I wasn't aware that anybody was suggesting this.

I see nothing wrong with saying the Church was wrong.....................

History should not be taught in a vacuum, and proper perspectives on it cannot be obtained until decades after the fact. Providing context in the form of modern knowledge and trends perpetuating from a major historical event is an essential part of comprehending it.

I never said saying the church was wrong was wrong, I said it was irrelevent to the study of that particular conflict. The fact the church was wrong (and later knew it was, even if it took them what, 300 years? to admit it) only really becomes relevent when studying later trends and conflicts. Any conflict must be studied from the POV of the times and the events leading up to the conflict. While we may note that one side or the other was wrong in their reasons such noting adds nothing to the study.

 

History should not be taught in a vacuum but we need to be very careful about "proper perspectives" when considering it. If we are not careful we run the risk of demonising people who don't deserve it. In the case of the Galileo conflict it is very easy to paint the churchmen as superstitious fools who were trying to hide the truth, but that would distort the study of the conflict. Most of the churchmen held an honest belief in their ideas about how the universe was arranged and were simply defending it. (Okay, they also thought their theory was hand delivered by God but that doesn't invalidate their honest intentions.)

 

We must be very careful when imposing later concepts of right or wrong to a historical conflict as to do so can make the group on the "wrong" side appear somewhat dishonest. It will almost certainly create a biased attitude on the part of the student. It is a very fine line to walk and if the teacher called the Bible a "myth" he stepped over that line.

[Ophiolite]

Most of the churchmen held an honest belief in their ideas about how the universe was arranged and were simply defending it.

How would you distinguish that from Hitler's honest beliefs about the role of Germany within Europe and the actions he undertook to implement this role.

[JohnB]

How would you distinguish that from Hitler's honest beliefs about the role of Germany within Europe and the actions he undertook to implement this role.

In a historical context, you don't. You could show how the subjects beliefs may have stimulated them to action and influenced the course of those actions. You could also look at the prevailing attitudes of the times and show why those attitudes allowed the subject to take those actions.

 

The goal is to be consistently dispassionate. Just because you don't assign moral values to the actions of a person or nation does not mean that you aren't personally revolted by them. In the same fashion, pointing out the strategic errors of the Axis powers during WW II doesn't mean that you wanted them to win. It just means you are describing the actions and the consequences of those actions.

 

I think it's a similar idea to the researcher who constructs an experiment to prove his pet theory only to have the results go the wrong way and demolish the theory. As a human, he will be disappointed and probably upset (the emotional reaction) but as a competent researcher he will accept the results and consign the theory to the dustbin.

 

It took me ages to get my head around the concept but I guess for many here it's second nature.

 

Does that answer your question?

[Severian]

Galileo being right or wrong does have an objective basis. It's a verifiable fact, not an opinion.

 

The irony of the Galileo/Vatican argument is that the statement "the Sun does not go round the Earth" is wrong - of course the sun goes around the Earth and we see the observational evidence of that every day!

 

I think this is a perfect example of how science becomes a form of religion for many people. The average joe does not understand science and the scientific method - they trust in 'educated people' to tell them that the world all works according to science. While I am a scientist and can vouch that it does (mostly!) all work, I find it disconcerting that general public just believe whatever they are told. Their trust is no more based on reason than the ancient Greeks' belief in Zeus.

 

This was brought home to me recently while in the Glasgow subway. They have been running posters trying to get people interested in science and I saw this one in particular: http://www.glasgowsciencecentre.org/24hours.aspx . As I am sure everyone here realizes, you can adjust your reference frame to make every one of the choices correct! Maybe I am just being picky but I really don't think modern society operates as rationally as we like to suppose.

[swansont]

The irony of the Galileo/Vatican argument is that the statement "the Sun does not go round the Earth" is wrong - of course the sun goes around the Earth and we see the observational evidence of that every day!

 

I think this is a perfect example of how science becomes a form of religion for many people. The average joe does not understand science and the scientific method - they trust in 'educated people' to tell them that the world all works according to science. While I am a scientist and can vouch that it does (mostly!) all work, I find it disconcerting that general public just believe whatever they are told. Their trust is no more based on reason than the ancient Greeks' belief in Zeus.

 

This was brought home to me recently while in the Glasgow subway. They have been running posters trying to get people interested in science and I saw this one in particular: http://www.glasgowsciencecentre.org/24hours.aspx . As I am sure everyone here realizes, you can adjust your reference frame to make every one of the choices correct! Maybe I am just being picky but I really don't think modern society operates as rationally as we like to suppose.

 

 

I don't think society operates particularly rationally, I think we're partly/mostly irrational beings that have to fight to let the rational part have its say. Irrational belief is a lot easier in many cases.

 

While its true that one can find a reference where each statement is true, Galileo discovered evidence that invalidated the earth-centered frame. As we've discussed on a number of occasions, to validate an idea it's not enough that your observation supports your hypothesis, it has to exclude other hypotheses as well

[Ophiolite]

In a historical context, you don't.

.............

Does that answer your question?

It has answered it inasmuch as it has revealed your interpretation of what is important in the situation - which is to say ethics takes a back seat. Thank you for the illumination.

[ParanoiA]

It has answered it inasmuch as it has revealed your interpretation of what is important in the situation - which is to say ethics takes a back seat. Thank you for the illumination.

 

How did you get that? He's clearly advocating a purely objective assessment of history. Value judgments have no place in that class. You can make your own personal judgments and most of us will, but it has no relevance to the objective of the course.

 

Science is supposed to be purely objective as well. Why don't we judge predators for being so darn mean when learning about natural selection? Do you all go off on conversations about what animal is right or wrong, justified or not when they slaughter and eat each other? It's not relevent to the course is it?

 

However, their motivation for killing and eating prey is relevant isn't it? And sometimes that motivation is repulsive isn't it? And still any value judgment of said predator is completely meaningless.

 

I believe that was John's point. Understanding that helps when practicing tolerance.

[bascule]

The irony of the Galileo/Vatican argument is that the statement "the Sun does not go round the Earth" is wrong - of course the sun goes around the Earth and we see the observational evidence of that every day!

 

So you're a fan of the Tychonic model?

[Ophiolite]

How did you get that? He's clearly advocating a purely objective assessment of history. Value judgments have no place in that class. You can make your own personal judgments and most of us will, but it has no relevance to the objective of the course.

John argued that the churchmen opposed to Galileo had honest intentions. If that isn't a value judgement I'll eat my mitre. My question to him was designed to highlight that ambiguity in his post. Obviously it failed utterly to do this.

[JohnB]

John argued that the churchmen opposed to Galileo had honest intentions.

Um, no I didn't.

 

I argued that the motivation for the actions of the churchmen derived from their honestly held belief, a totally different thing. A thief will hold an honest belief that he won't get caught, but that doesn't give him honest intentions.

 

People always act from honestly held beliefs (even if those beliefs are wrong) and a dispassionate study of History must allow for that.

It has answered it inasmuch as it has revealed your interpretation of what is important in the situation - which is to say ethics takes a back seat.

Of course it does, ethical values are relative. They apply only to a given group of people in given circumstances at a given time, hence it is unreasonable to judge a past group by the ethical standards of today.

 

Example: Eating dead Humans= Bad, but if you're trapped in the Andes after a plane crash, Eating dead Humans= Repugnant but acceptable.

However, their motivation for killing and eating prey is relevant isn't it? And sometimes that motivation is repulsive isn't it? And still any value judgment of said predator is completely meaningless.

 

I believe that was John's point.

Thanks ParanoiA, that was my point.

 

[Edit] Hmmm, rereading my post I see I did use the word "intentions", I really should have used the word "belief" there. I hope this error didn't cause confusion. [/Edit]

[swansont]

People always act from honestly held beliefs (even if those beliefs are wrong) and a dispassionate study of History must allow for that.

 

I think one wouldn't have to look very hard to find people who know they are peddling BS but do it anyway, i.e. it may not always be apparent what the "honestly held belief" is, assuming that statement truly reflects peoples' actions.

 

IOW it does not follow that geocentrism was an honestly held belief, if some other motivation outweighed the possible dishonesty.

[Severian]

Galileo discovered evidence that invalidated the earth-centered frame.

 

No he didn't - he discovered evidence that the Earth-centered frame is non-inertial. It is still a valid reference frame. In fact, the Sun-centered frame is also non-inertial.

[JohnB]

I think one wouldn't have to look very hard to find people who know they are peddling BS but do it anyway, i.e. it may not always be apparent what the "honestly held belief" is, assuming that statement truly reflects peoples' actions.

 

IOW it does not follow that geocentrism was an honestly held belief, if some other motivation outweighed the possible dishonesty.

Certainly, that is one of the reasons I mentioned a thief in my last post. He knows society frowns upon his actions but acts from the honestly held belief that he will get away with it.

 

In the case of Galileo we have to work from the basis that the churchmen acted from an honest belief in Geocentrism. We can suppose that at least some of the churchmen accepted heliocentrism as true but acted from other motives. Perhaps the honestly held belief that heliocentrism would damage the prestige of the church. Proving that supposition is another matter.

 

History is an unusual science. Historians don't have a reproducable subject. They have documents (which may or may not be later forgeries or may have been deliberately falsified at the time of writing) and they have other physical evidence, some of which can be studied using modern techniques. After that it pure detective work, which is why we have Forensic Anthropologists but not Forensic Phyicists.

[bascule]

No he didn't - he discovered evidence that the Earth-centered frame is non-inertial. It is still a valid reference frame. In fact, the Sun-centered frame is also non-inertial.

 

Don't you think it's a bit quaint to be defending the Tychonic model (which fell out of popularity with the mainstream scientific community, oh, maybe 200 years ago)? Among other things, I was under the impression that it doesn't predict the observed stellar aberration and stellar parallax... which the Copernican model does

[D H]

An Earth-centered is non-inertial, and is most certainly neither "Tychonic" nor invalid. Believe it or not, we do know how to carry out physics in a non-inertial frame.

 

NASA almost exclusively uses an Earth-centered frame to model spacecraft in the vicinity of the Earth. The results obtained from using a solar system barycenter frame are more likely to be invalid than the results obtained from using an Earth-centered frame. Why? About the best one can expect from double precision integrator is 12 decimal places of accuracy. That accuracy corresponds to about 7 microns for an Earth-centered propagator, but only 14 centimeters for a solar system barycenter-based propagator. 14 centimeters is a significant error in many applications.