No. It hasn’t been “many people from different backgrounds and with different motivations”. It has been the same three people (all of whom have been disagreeing with me); you, GJDS, and fmiddel. And both you and GJDS have been charged with misrepresentation by others.
This isn’t accurate. I said Calvin was a heretic with blood on his hands, and I stand by that description. This is the actual statement of yours to which I objected.
I was pointing out that you were comparing Calvin’s Christianity to other forms of Christianity
I replied “No, I was commenting directly and specifically on Calvin. I didn’t mention any other forms of Christianity. You did”. So ironically, you’ve misrepresented yourself.
That’s a particularly uncharitable comment. You could have said “I’m sorry for repeatedly claiming you are supporting the conflict thesis”, or “I apologize for misunderstanding you”. You cite your doctoral dissertation on the relationship of religion and science; I doubt you would appreciate someone saying “Of course, when we have professionals like Ted Davis here doing that very well, I am not sure how much the help of non-professionals is needed, but still, I’m glad to hear it”.
I already made it clear that there’s no need for me to develop a thesis on how Christianity has influenced scientific development, acknowledging the expertise of others. I said this.
There is no need for me to do so. It has already been done several times by people far more knowledgeable and competent than myself. I have most of the standard works, including Duhem, who pioneered the field.
But that doesn’t mean there’s no value in myself (and other Christians such as those at Biologos and yourself), publicly speaking out against the warfare thesis and demonstrating it is false. There is great value in that.
No. I have only used those terms in very specific contexts, such as the Galileo affair, geocentrism, and geology. I have repeatedly denied that this is any evidence for the warfare thesis.
No. It’s not remotely ambiguous given the context in which I have been using it is the Galileo affair. It very obviously doesn’t mean “all the Christian theologians of the day”, and I had already stated explicitly that not all the Christian theologians of the day agreed with the church. Not only that, but no one has expressed any confusion over my use of the term.
Now I will show you exactly how I have been misrepresented. First let’s take fmiddel.
-
I stated explicitly that the Catholic Church had scientists on its side. I said “Tycho Brahe objected to Galileo on scientific grounds”, and also pointed out that Ignoli wrote “a hefty work criticizing heliocentrism on the basis of science”.
-
Despite this, fmiddel then wrote “The Church had scientists on its side”, as if I hadn’t said this at all. He never acknowledged I had said this myself.
-
I then pointed out I had already said this, telling him “I already agreed the church had scientists on its side. I cited a couple of them. Tyco Brahe and Francesco Ignoli were the two most important”, and “I made it clear repeatedly that Galileo had his scientific opponents”.
-
Despite this, fmiddel continued to ignore what I had written, and said “That they defaulted to the Bible as the final authority does not mean no scientists were “on their side””, still giving the impression that I was claiming no scientists were on the side of the Catholic Church, and still failing to acknowledge the fact that I had already said there were scientists on the side of the Catholic Church at least three times previously, and I had even cited specific names. That’s repeated misrepresentation.
Now let’s look at GJDS.
-
He said “The universe, as you put it, was better understood due to the efforts of Christian scientist, who were probably more committed to central theological teachings than many current scientists”.
-
I pointed out “If you read the article I wrote, with which I opened this thread, you’ll find me agreeing with that”.
-
Despite this, he failed to acknowledge that I had already made the same point. He then went on to misrepresent me, saying “By making the ‘earth as the centre’ sound like theology, you are now asking us to believe that it was central to faith”. This was totally unacceptable since I had said noting remotely like this. I pointed this out, saying “No, I am saying heliocentrism was claimed to be destructive to faith. Specifically, it was claimed by theologians to be destructive to faith”.
-
Not content with this, GJDS accused me of supporting the warfare thesis, saying “I find it odd that you would focus the way you do on theology, as if it is the enemy of science”. I corrected him immediately, saying “I don’t believe theology is the enemy of science”.
-
He ignored this, and simply repeated his claim, saying “So again I ask you to name major theological figures in Christianity who conform to your conflict-riddled model of the faith-science discussion”. I corrected him once more, saying “I don’t agree with the conflict model of the faith/science discussion, as I have made very clear”.
-
He ignored this, and repeated his claim yet again, saying “The curious position of @Jonathan_Burke is this: (a) theologians and Church doctrine were against science”. I corrected him again, saying “No that is not my position. I have told you this before”.
-
Despite this, he ignored it and still repeated his claim, saying “you insist the Church opposes (or has often opposed) scientific conclusions”. I corrected him yet again, saying “No. Please read what I wrote”.
This is not a case of him being led astray by my poor phrasing. This is him looking at what I am saying, and claiming I am saying the exact opposite. Every time I tell him exactly what my view is, he claims my view is the opposite of what I am saying, even when I have spelled it out explicitly more than once, and quoted Augustine making exactly the same point. That is misrepresentation.
