Reading Galileo's forced recantation fills me with so much disgust for the criminals who ran the RCC in the 1600's that I thought I would share it with you. Perhaps LH would like to further defend the Church's actions in this matter:
I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General against heretical depravity throughout the entire Christian commonwealth, having before my eyes and touching with my hands, the Holy Gospels, swear that I have always believed, do believe, and by God's help will in the future believe, all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas -- after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture -- I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this new doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these, and for this reason I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves:
Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion, justly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error, heresy, and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be. Further, I swear and promise to fulfill and observe in their integrity all penances that have been, or that shall be, imposed upon me by this Holy Office. And, in the event of my contravening, (which God forbid) any of these my promises and oaths, I submit myself to all the pains and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. So help me God, and these His Holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands.
I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of my abjuration, and recited it word for word at Rome, in the Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633.
I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand.
To put it in your snotnose terminology: your turn, LH.
Originally posted by no1marauderLook again. What do you think the terms "philosophy" and "philosophically" refers to in these assessments?
For anyone who takes seriously LH's ridiculous assertion that the RCC was just waiting for Galileo to come up with more scientific evidence to support the Copernician system (heliocentric) and then everything would have been hunky dory, here's the report of the Inquistion in 1616:
Assessment made at the Holy Office, Rome, Wednesday, 24 Februar ...[text shortened]... with either a strong stomach or a sympathy for the suppression of ideas on religious grounds.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI think you disgust me. You have the nerve to call Galileo "intellectually dishonest"?? I've presented a mountain of evidence to show your position is absurd.
Look again. What do you think the terms "philosophy" and "philosophically" refers to in these assessments?
BTW, did you ever actually look at the depositions of Galileo before you so smugly told others that Galileo wasn't threatened with torture?
Originally posted by no1marauderLearn something about the history of science. Neither Einstein's nor Newton's theories were such that they didn't explain current observations better than established theories
By that logic, so was Einstein, Newton and virtually every scientific innovator "wrong". Of course, none of them were threatened with being burned at the stake for being "wrong".
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, it's the "raped woman shouldn't be dancing naked in front of a know rapist singing 'Come get me if you can'" argument.
But it was all Galileo's fault for being pushy and "meddling in theology". Did you forget to read LH's crap?
From page 6:
Originally posted by no1marauder
Who cares if he could scientifically prove his theory using 1600's technology? That's a ridiculous red herring. The point is he was not even allowed to teach or write about his theori ...[text shortened]... fers to).
The "raped woman shouldn't have been out at 1 AM" argument.
Originally posted by no1marauderThank you.
BTW, Galileo was explictly threatened with torture. From his fourth deposition on June 21, 1633:
Having been told that from the book itself and the reasons advanced for the affirmative side, namely that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, he is presumed, as it was stated, that he holds Copernicus's opinion, or at least that he held it at ...[text shortened]... mination was made.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/depositions.html
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow contemptible you are. Read his recantation, you pitiless, heartless SOB. Tell us again how Galileo "pressured" and "coerced" the poor monsters who ran your Church.
No, it's the "raped woman shouldn't be dancing naked in front of a know rapist singing 'Come get me if you can'" argument.
Originally posted by no1marauderno1:"I think you disgust me."
I think you disgust me. You have the nerve to call Galileo "intellectually dishonest"?? I've presented a mountain of evidence to show your position is absurd.
BTW, did you ever actually look at the depositions of Galileo before you so smugly told others that Galileo wasn't threatened with torture?
Yeah, yeah, whatever. Freedom of expression and all that jazz.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that you disgust me, but you're very offensive.
no1:"You have the nerve to call Galileo "intellectually dishonest"?? I've presented a mountain of evidence to show your position is absurd."
My position that Galileo was intellectually dishonest? No, you haven't presented any evidence against that. You're mixing up your cases, Mr. Shore.
no1: "BTW, did you ever actually look at the depositions of Galileo before you so smugly told others that Galileo wasn't threatened with torture?"
I didn't say Galileo wasn't threatened with torture. I did challenge those who assert it to prove it.
Originally posted by no1marauderObservations of the moons of Jupiter supported Galileo's theory no more than Brahe's. As I said before, learn something about the history of science.
You're truly idiotic. How long are you going to try to insist on this lie? Observations of the moons of Jupiter were support for Galileo's theories. And Brahe's theory was never held as the dominant one.
And none of that matters anyway.
BTW, was Galileo threatened with torture, Mr. Expert on History?
You're right - Brahe's theory was never held as the "dominant" one. But, as a representation of reality (rather than a mathematical model of convenience) it certainly competed with the Copernican model (with Kepler's modifications) till the end of the 17th century, as Hooke's testimony shows.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're full of righteous indignation, aren't you?
How contemptible you are. Read his recantation, you pitiless, heartless SOB. Tell us again how Galileo "pressured" and "coerced" the poor monsters who ran your Church.
How did Galileo pressure and coerce the hierarchy of the Church? Simple - by his actions before his trial.
Galileo's political error, intentional or not, consisted in alienating his friend the Pope by putting his words in the mouth of the Simplicius, the fool in his Dialogue.
As to his big scientific mistake, "Against the imputation that Galileo was guilty of some kind of deceit in making these arguments one may take the position of Albert Einstein, as one who had done original work in physics, that Galileo developed his "fascinating arguments" and accepted them too uncritically out of a desire for a physical proof of the motion of the Earth (Einstein, 1952)."
As to his place in science, ""Galileo also put forward the basic principle of relativity, that the laws of physics are the same in any system that is moving at a constant speed in a straight line, regardless of its particular speed or direction. Hence, there is no absolute motion or absolute rest. This principle provided the basic framework for Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's theory of relativity."
As to the Church's handling of the affair, "On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II, officially announced that the Church had mishandled the case"--an admission that Urban VIII was wrong.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWho's Todd?
Galileo's political error, intentional or not, consisted in alienating his friend the Pope by putting his words in the mouth of the Simplicius, the fool in his Dialogue.
As to his big scientific mistake, "Against the imputation that Galileo was guilty of some kind of deceit in making these arguments one may take the position of Albert Einstein, as ...[text shortened]... d that the Church had mishandled the case"--an admission that Urban VIII was wrong.
Originally posted by DragonFriendI have a strong interest in spiritality (an elemental fact of my existence), but I don't see spirituality expressed here very often. Instead, I see expressions of narrow-minded dogmatism propping up a weak faith in an unhealthy religion.
I understand why the Christians are here discussing God, but why are the skeptics here? If I can speak generally, the thing skeptics dislike about Christians most is that we're unwilling to change the basis of our faith. So what do the skeptics hope to accomplish with these discussions?
DF
I have no objection to anyone's faith, but I challenge expressions of illiteracy when the ignoramus presents him- or herself as a teacher, and I labor to keep certain religious delusions out of the realm of science.
Originally posted by WulebgrSure: truth is so valuable to you, you are willing to stamp out any and all challenges to it, no matter where the battle takes you. Forget that all of logic and truth find their beginning in God, keepers of the standard such as yourself will vouchsafe its perpetuation.
I have a strong interest in spiritality (an elemental fact of my existence), but I don't see spirituality expressed here very often. Instead, I see expressions of narrow-minded dogmatism propping up a weak faith in an unhealthy religion.
I have no objection to anyone's faith, but I challenge expressions of illiteracy when the ignoramus presents him- or he ...[text shortened]... elf as a teacher, and I labor to keep certain religious delusions out of the realm of science.