From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 21 2004 - 10:28:19 BST
Hi all,
Content Advisory Warning: for those with an antipathy to Christian perspectives, please look away
now. You must consider your blood pressure ;-)
Pirsig claims that science is superior to Christian beliefs because it is more dynamic, specifically
that it has an 'eraser'. He - in common with much conventional opinion - perceives Christianity as
something which is unable to change, and therefore of comparatively low Quality. As you might
imagine, I consider his opinion on this matter flawed and ill-founded.
To bring this out, I'd like to look at the Galileo episode as Galileo is often brought out as an
example of the wickedness of church institutions, and certainly, to execute someone for their
beliefs is an abominable act. However, the wickedness of that act - and the use of this example in
the various debates between 'science and religion' (in truth, internal arguments within the
Modernist/SOM mindset) has distorted one particular truth - and when Pirsig, and others not too far
away from this forum, repeat the idea that Christianity cannot change, they are reproducing a static
pattern which is not true, that is, which has low Quality. So I'd like simply to point out that it
is not true, as it would seem conducive to a proper discussion for us to be in full possession of
the facts. Not least because the increasing salience of religious questions in our world in the
coming years will force us to examine our deepest assumptions, both religious, atheist, agnostic and
absconding - all of us.
So, Galileo. I would want to point out two things.
1. Although Galileo's perspective was correct (ie the earth does travel round the sun) it could not
be shown to be correct at the time of the debate. The Ptolemaic model was a more accurate model for
predicting the movements of the heavenly bodies. Galileo's perspective had greater beauty, and
promised great things, but it could not be shown to be correct at the time of his trial. (See Kuhn
on this, amongst others).
2. The church authorities did not rule out the possibility of change. I quote from Cardinal
Bellarmino (Galileo's antagonist): "If there were any real proof that the Sun is in the centre of
the universe and that the earth is in the third heaven, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth
but the Earth around the Sun, then we would have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining
passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not
understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true". In other words, if
Galileo could have proved his point, then the Church would have backed down.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 21 2004 - 10:34:33 BST