Originally posted by no1marauderYou are judging the case based on the knowledge that he was right.
Lucifershammer also believed that Galileo got what he deserved.
Lets look at this from another angle. Would Galileo's treatment have been justifiable if he had in fact been wrong? Would it have been justifiable if he had not only been wrong, but also blasphemous?
If his prosecutors genuinely believed that he was wrong and blasphemous, were they wrong to act as they did?
Is anyone demanding apologies to the families of other blasphemous characters who suffered similar treatment but did not latter turn out to be great scientists?
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe, of course, wasn't tried for blasphemy but for heresy, but that makes little difference.
You are judging the case based on the knowledge that he was right.
Lets look at this from another angle. Would Galileo's treatment have been justifiable if he had in fact been wrong? Would it have been justifiable if he had not only been wrong, but also blasphemous?
If his prosecutors genuinely believed that he was wrong and blasphemous, were they wrong ...[text shortened]... s characters who suffered similar treatment but did not latter turn out to be great scientists?
It wouldn't make any difference to me if heliocentrism had somehow been proven to be wrong (based on the Bible???); I don't believe that any institution has the right to try someone under threat of torture and death for what they believe in.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou know when this happened, right?
He, of course, wasn't tried for blasphemy but for heresy, but that makes little difference.
It wouldn't make any difference to me if heliocentrism had somehow been proven to be wrong (based on the Bible???); I don't believe that any institution has the right to try someone under threat of torture and death for what they believe in.
1 edit
Originally posted by margarethfallsI suppose it's like the Luddites in a way; they were afraid for their futures, so took action to protect that future. Can we condemn them now? What would have happened had a movement like the Luddites won through? Perhaps we might live simpler lives, but who has the right to push their agenda, however much they believe they are right...
Whats going here I wonder?
Yet one of the most simple concepts with the most far-reaching consequences was mocked by the 'establishment' - the thinker, clearly worried not by his idea but by the 'establishment's' reaction to it, and rightly so. What if that idea had been stifled?
Originally posted by PalynkaWell the question then is whether or not the current Roman Catholic Church should be held responsible for the actions of its past members or its past actions as an institution.
You know when this happened, right?
Further, since most denominations are in some way descended from the Roman Catholic Church (despite the protestations of some), are they also responsible for actions committed before the splits? Should all Churches be offering formal apologies to any gnostics who were not treated with the utmost fairness in the early centuries of the Church?
What I would see as more important, is to make sure that as an institution they do not still maintain any rules that demand unjust punishments.
The issue of being buried on consecrated ground is probably seperate, as it was probably within the rights of the Church.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf a church deny evolution today, they should apologize.
Well the question then is whether or not the current Roman Catholic Church should be held responsible for the actions of its past members or its past actions as an institution.
Further, since most denominations are in some way descended from the Roman Catholic Church (despite the protestations of some), are they also responsible for actions committed bef ...[text shortened]... on consecrated ground is probably seperate, as it was probably within the rights of the Church.
If the church denied evolution in the days of Darwin, they just have to explain that they did deny the science, not to hide they denied it.
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhat does it mean to deny the science in the days of Darwin? At the time, there were also important biologists who disagreed strongly with Darwin.
If the church denied evolution in the days of Darwin, they just have to explain that they did deny the science, not to hide they denied it.
Also, there were many within the Church that agreed with Darwin. Baden Powell, is just one example.
Institutions progress always through the conflict between those that wish to maintain the status quo and those that which to change it. It's simply naive to expect an instititution to instantly accept of ideas that force it to change.
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, I would like to hear the words of the Pope himself, saying: "Today, all scientific obserations show the force of evolution, so being a modern chruch we also believe in evolution, as a part of gods devine creation." That would mean a lot.
What does it mean to deny the science in the days of Darwin? At the time, there were also important biologists who disagreed strongly with Darwin.
Also, there were many within the Church that agreed with Darwin. Baden Powell, is just one example.
Institutions progress always through the conflict between those that wish to maintain the status qu ...[text shortened]... s simply naive to expect an instititution to instantly accept of ideas that force it to change.
Not long ago, the church of the Vatican said something similar about Galileos work. Good, but a few hundred years too late... (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460.600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right-.html)
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasIf the Pope said that explaining how species develop should be done by natural sciences and is not a matter of faith, would that be enough?
Well, I would like to hear the words of the Pope himself, saying: "Today, all scientific obserations show the force of evolution, so being a modern chruch we also believe in evolution, as a part of gods devine creation." That would mean a lot.
Not long ago, the church of the Vatican said something similar about Galileos work. Good, but a few hundred ye ...[text shortened]... .. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460.600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right-.html)
Originally posted by PalynkaI have not a problem with if faith on evolution as being a part of the divine creation.
If the Pope said that explaining how species develop should be done by natural sciences and is not a matter of faith, would that be enough?
But your suggestion would be fine with me. Will you tell him, or do you think I should...? 😉
Originally posted by FabianFnas"It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith."
I have not a problem with if faith on evolution as being a part of the divine creation.
But your suggestion would be fine with me. Will you tell him, or do you think I should...? 😉
- excerpt from Ratzinger, In the Beginning
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, he thinks so. There are openings for other thoughts as well.
"It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith."
- excerpt from Ratzinger, In the Beginning
But anyway, I'm the scientific kind of guy, I don't care if it's about faith or not. It's up to everyone of us (or not) to decide what is within his/hers faith or not.