14 Feb 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat DO you think a scientific paper is, if not a jumped up, formalised, open letter? Should one be punished for stating ones viewpoint? Anyhoo, this is all irrespective, Galileo was correct in his assertion, and the church wrong in theirs. The church persecuted a man wrongly.
You're right - it's his letter to Castelli (1613) that is used to raise the charges - but the letter to the Grand Duchess (1615) (an expansion of the letter to Castelli) is brought into evidence at the trial, the sentence of which is not given till December. So, I stand corrected.
Now, what evidence is there of a PR campaign by Galileo? The first o ...[text shortened]... fic circles, but he hardly needs to be circulating letters and pamphlets for that, does he?
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerSorry, but the grammar on this first quote is horrible. I'm unsure whether Lorini was having the provate conversations with Galileo or with someone else. Setting the Inquisition on Galileo can hardly be considered a good thing to do though...
Here's your timeline chart again:
http://galileo.rice.edu/chron/galileo.html
The only mention of Lorini is in the entry for February 1615:
[quote]A Dominican friar Niccolo Lorini, who had earlier criticized Galileo's view [b]in private conversations, files a written complaint with the Inquisition against Galileo's Copernican views. He enclose ...[text shortened]... h means he did not come up with those arguments in response to his Inquisition charges.[/b]
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderContradiction: A & ~A
Are you aware what a contradiction is? We can say the Galileo timeline has an omission, whereas the other site the Trial Of Galileo is more detailed. This is unsurprising because it is a law school website regarding a TRIAL, albeit a farcical one.
Your entire case for Letter to Castelli being a response to public criticism is based on the UMKC Law site that claims that Lorini attacked Galileo in public - something your timeline claims was private. That it was, indeed, a private attack is verified by Paula Newell's essay as well (and she is no Church-apologist either).
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzAs one of the sources I cited earlier mentions, the Letter to the Grand Duchess was written as a pamphlet; ergo, it was intended to be distributed.
Presumably, Castelli, the Grand Duchess or one of their servants, leaked the letter. Happens all the time nowadays, so why not then. You are suggesting that Galileo made several copies of his letters; so where it your proof?
The question of who published the Letter to Castelli (Galileo or Castelli) is disputed though. In neither case have I seen anything suggesting a leak or espionage.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzRead the letters to Castelli and the Grand Duchess (they are easy enough to find on the Web) for yourself. They are most definitively not scientific papers. Theological papers, maybe, but not scientific.
What DO you think a scientific paper is, if not a jumped up, formalised, open letter? Should one be punished for stating ones viewpoint? Anyhoo, this is all irrespective, Galileo was correct in his assertion, and the church wrong in theirs. The church persecuted a man wrongly.
And, btw, from the perspective of a modern physicist, heliocentrism is no more "correct" than geocentrism (Google "modern geocentrism"😉 - which makes perfect sense in Relativism.
14 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by DragonFriendActually, I think skeptics try everything they can do to disprove God, but they have no where to go with their assumptions. I've heard people on here saying "nothing" came out of "something" until plain sick and disgruntled when off the internet! It saddens me how some people do open their hearts to the love of Jesus Christ. 🙁 Just imagine nothing! No time. No space. No material. All of the sudden, BOOM! Time, space, stars, planets... SOMETHING! Now, the skeptic will say that God didn't do it. They'll say they just don't know what did. And, I say God did it all! Now, doesn't it seem much more solid to know in your heart God did it all rather than say, "Uhhh Duhhh... I don't know. But, I know it wasn't God!" HAHA!
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
14 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerMy "entire case" hardly rests on whether the Lorini attack was public OR private. Your really grasping at straws to state such nonsense. Galileo need only have known that there were some in the Church stating that Copernician theory was heresy and lobbying for it to be declared such. He was certainly intelligent enough (although you seem intent on claiming he was an idiot) to realize what effect that would have on his writing and teaching. The sites state Lorini was the first and that his attack preceded Galileo's letter to Castelli by a month. It doesn't take much extrapolation to conclude they were related; as you concede, Galileo had pretty good sources of info in the Church.
Contradiction: A & ~A
Your entire case for Letter to Castelli being a response to public criticism is based on the UMKC Law site that claims that Lorini attacked Galileo in public - something your timeline claims was private. That it was, indeed, a private attack is verified by Paula Newell's essay as well (and she is no Church-apologist either).
14 Feb 06
2 edits
.
It is most amusing to read that so many skeptics, who claim nót to believe in myths and always accuse their opponents of doing so, actually dó believe in myths, their own myths ..... The Galileo myth, as it grew over the centuries in the bosom of their ideology, is one of them. No trace whatsoever of their "skeptical" mind in these cases. No trace of wanting to actually see what is historically relevant. They all think alike. They all think like sheep ...... skeptical sheep .... Heap scorn and derision on them !
I've seen and experienced more skeptical minds in the realm of religion than in the minds of these followers of secular fashion .......
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeOnly the most utterly brainwashed person could write that post and actually, sincerely believe it. I've been waiting to see some historical evidence that supports the idea that Galileo was persecuted because he believed in and wrote about the heliocentric theory is a "myth"; I'm still waiting.
.
It is most amusing to read that so many skeptics, who claim nót to believe in myths and always accuse their opponents of doing so, actually dó believe in myths, their own myths ..... The Galileo myth, as it grew over the centuries in the bosom of their ideology, is one of them. No trace whatsoever of their "skeptical" mind in these cases. No trace of want ...[text shortened]... inds in the realm of religion than in the minds of these followers of secular fashion .......
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou haven't even grasped the essence of your own myth ..... but keep on trying.
Only the most utterly brainwashed person could write that post and actually, sincerely believe it. I've been waiting to see some historical evidence that supports the idea that Galileo was persecuted because he believed in and wrote about the heliocentric theory is a "myth"; I'm still waiting.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeskeptical sheep???
.
It is most amusing to read that so many skeptics, who claim nót to believe in myths and always accuse their opponents of doing so, actually dó believe in myths, their own myths ..... The Galileo myth, as it grew over the centuries in the bosom of their ideology, is one of them. No trace whatsoever of their "skeptical" mind in these cases. No trace of want ...[text shortened]... inds in the realm of religion than in the minds of these followers of secular fashion .......
LOL
Ba-a-a-a-a-d metaphor
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour EDIT seems the correct version since it harmonizes the various sources; the private attack might not have seemed important enough for the timeline; I'm sure numerous clerics attacked the idea of heliocentricism in PRIVATE.
no1-
Actually it does, in one of the narrative pages.
So, is your Galileo timeline chart (the one you cited from) wrong then?
EDIT: Just pointing out that two of your sources apparently contradict each other on a factual matter. Or are both correct - did Lorini attack Galileo in private in 1612, give him an apology; then attack him in public in 1613 and give him another apology before going to the Inquisition in 1615?