Pope Fires his Chief Astronomer

Originally posted by no1marauder
No. This is a discussion Forum; either give your views clearly or don't; I'm not interested in wild goose chases for other people's opinions.

Ok, what's the beef with the asronomer being Catholic (or needing to be one)?

Would Israel appoint a non Jewish astronomer, or Iran a non-Muslim one ???

Maybe i've missed the point in this part of the argument 😕

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
Ok, what's the beef with the asronomer being Catholic (or needing to be one)?

Would Israel appoint a non Jewish astronomer, or Iran a non-Muslim one ???

Maybe i've missed the point in this part of the argument 😕

It's worse, since it's more than simply a nationality, it is a whole worldview that is essential for the institution employing the astronomer.

Originally posted by Palynka
This also reminds me of the discussion between LH and me where my view was that what defines a religion is what the bulk of followers claim to believe and not what the scholarly write and believe.

LH and I have had similar discussions in terms of freedom versus authority. I can cede the notion of sometimes bowing to authority in one area in order to “free yourself up” to pursue other things—for example, my wife has a far greater knowledge base about music than I (who have practically none); if she makes some point about a symphony, say, I just accept it without running to the library to check it out. However, if that becomes more of an interest of mine, I would do just that—and she and I could have some great debates maybe...

I also cede knowledge-based authority to, say, my doctor—but not unquestioningly; if s/he says to “take this pill,” I want to know exactly what it is, what it does, how it does it, etc. In the end, I may or may not take her advice.

I grant both you and telerion greater authority to speak in matters economic, partly because my degree was long ago, and I never really practiced the discipline afterwards—but I might question you more closely than I would, say, the musicologist.

Etc., etc.

But I don’t think that by ceding authority, one can abrogate one’s own responsibility. (LH I think agrees on that.)

Originally posted by vistesd
LH and I have had similar discussions in terms of freedom versus authority. I can cede the notion of sometimes bowing to authority in one area in order to “free yourself up” to pursue other things—for example, my wife has a far greater knowledge base about music than I (who have practically none); if she makes some point about a symphony, say, I just accept ...[text shortened]... at by ceding authority, one can abrogate one’s own responsibility. (LH I think agrees on that.)

Many followers may cede authority in some matters, but many simply are content with disagreeing with the scholars about some subjects.

Example, if one day, the vast majority of Christians believe that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with gay marriage, I doubt that even the pope could do anything against it.

In the end, it is the followers' morality and beliefs that force the changes on religions, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Palynka
I did. That you didn't understand them, doesn't mean they weren't clear.

No, you haven't. You've failed to give a single reason why it is NECESSARY for an astronomer employed (kinda) by the Vatican to be Catholic or meet even more stringent theological tests. Saying "it's obvious" when it isn't, isn't an argument or a discussion.

Originally posted by Palynka
It's worse, since it's more than simply a nationality, it is a whole worldview that is essential for the institution employing the astronomer.

WHY???????????????????????????????

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, you haven't. You've failed to give a single reason why it is NECESSARY for an astronomer employed (kinda) by the Vatican to be Catholic or meet even more stringent theological tests. Saying "it's obvious" when it isn't, isn't an argument or a discussion.

The same reason the organ player is, i guess 😕

Originally posted by Palynka
Many followers may cede authority in some matters, but many simply are content with disagreeing with the scholars about some subjects.

Example, if one day, the vast majority of Christians believe that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with gay marriage, I doubt that even the pope could do anything against it.

In the end, it is the followers' morality and beliefs that force the changes on religions, not the other way around.

I would guess that our friend’s response would be something along the lines of: “But that doesn’t mean that such popularly-driven changes represent moral truth.” 🙂

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
Ok, what's the beef with the asronomer being Catholic (or needing to be one)?

Would Israel appoint a non Jewish astronomer, or Iran a non-Muslim one ???

Maybe i've missed the point in this part of the argument 😕

Maybe Israel would appoint a non-Jewish astronomer if they thought he was the most qualified astronomer. Ditto for Iran.

The "argument" (which is actually a monologue since Palynka refuses to give any reasons for his position) is why would the Vatican think that certain theological views are necessary to be an astronomer at the Vatican Observatory. I say it would be about as important as the dishwasher at the Vatican kitchen having the same theological views.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
The same reason the organ player is, i guess 😕

Do you think that every one in the world employed by the RCC or a related organization is Catholic?

Originally posted by no1marauder
WHY???????????????????????????????

Because the Vatican wants to have a voice that officially represents the Church's views with some scientific credibility.

Originally posted by Palynka
Because the Vatican wants to have a voice that officially represents the Church's views with some scientific credibility.

The job isn't a PR one.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The job isn't a PR one.

Isn't it? Well, oficially it isn't, but we can go back to my original question.

Why does the Vatican want an Observatory?

PS: And remember that the guy was pressured due to his "different" views. Why should it matter if you're right?

Originally posted by Palynka
Isn't it? Well, oficially it isn't, but we can go back to my original question.

Why does the Vatican want an Observatory?

PS: And remember that the guy was pressured due to his "different" views. Why should it matter if you're right?

Because if I'm right, he shouldn't have forced to resign regardless of his theological views (assuming he was forced to resign for his theological views which seems likely). What I was looking for was some reason from someone why this is a correct or even justifiable decision by the Vatican. I'm still waiting.

Why do they have an Observatory? Probably for the same reason they have libraries.

EDIT: Question to LH, page 7:

So the question is; is it a requirement of the Vatican and the RCC in general that everybody employed by it hew to the theological principles espoused by the Church?

You may add: And if so, why?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Because if I'm right, he shouldn't have forced to resign regardless of his theological views (assuming he was forced to resign for his theological views which seems likely). What I was looking for was some reason from someone why this is a correct or even justifiable decision by the Vatican. I'm still waiting.

Why do they have an Observatory ...[text shortened]... o the theological principles espoused by the Church?

You may add: And if so, why?

My answer to your original question is an obvious "yes" if they are representing the Catholic Church in their work.

Stop pretending you didn't read my previous answers.