• AFK BRB Chocolate (CA version)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I didn’t say it made him dumb, I implied that faith doesn’t flow from logic. Plus it’s a little problematic to say that our great minds were people of faith when, for much of our history, not being a person of faith could mean death. But it’s true, there were folks like Thomas Aquinas who were brilliant and more than average religious.

      • Goldholz @lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        You could life and not be xealos or pious aka faithful. The past wasnt as xealot as you think it was

        Edit: i would have poikted to Leibnitz and Hum as brilliant people, especially Leibnitz, who were faithful

          • vanillama@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            23 hours ago

            The narrative of Galileo vs the Church is misrepresented to push a specific narrative, the whole thing is obviously very nuanced, but to keep it short he was in disagreement with the Church, but he was a Catholic himself who happened to live in a period where the Church was on edge due to the tension with Protestantism. The fight wasn’t on science vs religion, but on who had the religious authority, individuals or the Church.

            Galileo is portrayed as a proto-skeptic later on because it was useful to present the European enlightenment as a rupture with the old world, nevermind that Europeans pushed racism as a science while claiming to be purely rational, you can see this kind of misrepresentation of many early scientists as well such as Newton, who’s obsession with esoterism is rarely discussed, and even when promoting a grand narrative of the West as the cradle of reason people like to ignore that as far as we know Pythagoras was a weird religious dude with a cult, you don’t need to be rational in all spheres to be rational in some, and if we want to highlight the diversity of western thought as a good thing (which I believe it is) we can also find examples of early skeptics way before the enlightenment. Cicero literally wrote a skeptic as one of his characters to express his ideas, and while he’s clearly trying to promote stoicism instead, the fact that he includes a skeptic shows that there were already skeptics in society even back in Rome. And again, in my opinion this is a good thing, we generally need more skepticism, not less, but let’s not reinforce narratives that are just false and used to whitewash the horrendous crimes of colonialism to this day.