2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderOnce again, actually read what I wrote in response to vistesd.
Yep. And here's my final post from last May which you never responded to:
Here's the first paragraph of the sentence:
Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center o in fanaticism in 1633.
I think it remains irrefutable.
Second, I'm not basing everything on (5). What I said to vistesd in this thread, and what I told you in the previous thread, was that it was (5) that brought him under the Inquisition's jurisdiction. I didn't deny that the Inquisition's final verdict condemned his scientific position.
Third, the crime in (5) is not that he replied to objections, but that he did so by using his own interpretation of Scripture. He didn't just say (as Cardinal Bellarmine did) "we might not be reading Scriptures correctly" - he said "Scripture passage X means Y". That is meddling in theology.
Fourth, why were so many objections raised all over Europe to his theories in the first place? After all, the Copernican model had been around for nearly half a century. The answer is simple - because Galileo had been running a PR campaign to coerce the Church into declaring his theory true.
EDIT: Also, it's worth checking up your history. Galileo wasn't summoned to Rome in 1615 by the Inquisition - he was already there. Why? To pressure his good friend Pope Urban into declaring his theory (which he couldn't prove) true.
As an aside, it's worth remembering that when the Inquisition said his theories were "philosophically false" they mean that it was scientifically false (science was a part of philosophy then and not a separate discipline as it is now). If Galileo had been able to scientifically prove his theory, the Inquisition could not have charged him.
Originally posted by howardgeeThe particular "religious zealot" you are responding to actually hails from a country that practises euthanasia and "assisted suicide" (it's no longer suicide in practice - it's already become murder against the will of the patient). I'm sure he's in a better position than you are to judge the long-term ill-effects of that policy.
Oh, this classic seems to have passed every rational person by!
Gunghoe claims that:
"In 100 years people who'll use the same reasoning as you do will accuse the Church of allowing abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide. The fact that the Church strongly opposed these concepts doesn't matter to people who reason in the way you do."
He actually t ...[text shortened]... f such claims and to shine the light of reason into the dim world of the religious zealots.)
Originally posted by lucifershammerUnbelievable. How, pray tell, does one respond to "objections from Scriptures" without saying "Scripture passage means x"? Particulary when those objecting from Scripture are saying his theories are heresy - you know the burning at the stake kind? Your "point" is nonsensical.
Once again, actually [b]read what I wrote in response to vistesd.
Second, I'm not basing everything on (5). What I said to vistesd in this thread, and what I told you in the previous thread, was that it was (5) that brought him under the Inquisition's jurisdiction. I didn't deny that the Inquisition's final verdict condemned his scientific posi ...[text shortened]... ]scientifically[/i] prove his theory, the Inquisition could not have charged him.[/b]
I find it amazing that you use the word "coerce" to describe a scientist trying to convince the Church leaders that his theories were correct by persuasion. No, coercion is threatening someone with prison or death if they keep writing and teaching about their life's work.
I find it incredible that you keep trying to pretend that this was some simple little factual debate and all Galileo had to do was come up with a bit more evidence to support his theory and the RCC would have said "Yep! You're right; no burning at the stake for you!" Do you really believe such drivel?? If so, why was Copernicius' books still banned for two centuries AFTER Galileo?
Your values are truly twisted.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI take it, then, that scientists in Protestant countries had nothing to fear from the Inquisition? If so, then the reason scientists did not accept Galileo's model to be true until the 18th century was not because they feared the Inquisition; but because they recognized that his model was simply not the best one around (at the time).
Once again, actually [b]read what I wrote in response to vistesd.
Second, I'm not basing everything on (5). What I said to vistesd in this thread, and what I told you in the previous thread, was that it was (5) that brought him under the Inquisition's jurisdiction. I didn't deny that the Inquisition's final verdict condemned his scientific posi ]scientifically[/i] prove his theory, the Inquisition could not have charged him.[/b]
From the Inquisition? By that time, undoubtedly not—as long as they stayed away from, or fled from, Catholic countries, anyway. From the Protestants? Maybe not from the Lutherans; don’t know about the Calvinist’s—I think Calvin only had one heretic burned at the stake; the Lutherans were quite willing to burn witches. But I’d need further evidence about what a majority of scientists in Europe recognized which (if any) was the best model, and whether or not they feared the churches, not just the RCC.
If Galileo had been able to scientifically prove his theory, the Inquisition could not have charged him.
But doesn’t this beg the question a bit? Who decides the standards and level of “proof,” and to whose satisfaction? For Luther, with his sola scriptura, no “proof” would likely have been acceptable if it contradicted Scripture. The issues are probably more complicated for the RCC, but the question remains. If a scientist is not permitted to publish his work, for example, how is it to be tested by the rest of the scientific community? How long was it before Einstein’s theories could be adequately tested empirically?
The point is that it seems clear that the churches (and this has been true of other religions as well at various points in history) have at times stood in the way of public scientific investigation because the findings appeared to threaten their theological viewpoints. When they have done so, they were simply wrong.
NOTE: Sorry it took me so long to respond, but I had a minor computer crash.
LATE EDIT: But (1) If Galileo had been able to prove his theory, and (2) if that proven theory contradicted accepted interpretations of scripture, and (3) if Galileo had pointed that out, could not the Inquisition have charged him based on the theological issue?
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe country he hails from may well allow such practices...no thanks to him and like minded religious bigots though!
The particular "religious zealot" you are responding to actually hails from a country that practises euthanasia and "assisted suicide" (it's no longer suicide in practice - it's already become murder against the will of the patient). I'm sure he's in a better position than you are to judge the long-term ill-effects of that policy.
Originally posted by no1marauder1. I've already answered that. He didn't have to go further than Cardinal Bellarmine.
Unbelievable. How, pray tell, does one respond to "objections from Scriptures" without saying "Scripture passage means x"? Particulary when those objecting from Scripture are saying his theories are heresy - you know the burning at the stake kind? Your "point" is nonsensical.
I find it amazing that you use the word "coerce" to describe a scienti ...[text shortened]... ill banned for two centuries AFTER Galileo?
Your values are truly twisted.
2. "Coerce" because he was sending pamphlets all around Europe declaring his theory to be true (which, as I pointed out earlier, was intellectually dishonest) well before the objections started coming in. Why do you think he was doing that - to win the Nobel Prize?
3. Actually, that is the case. That was the advice the Jesuit astronomers and Cardinal Bellarmine gave Galileo - to scientifically prove his case so that he wouldn't have to worry about a heresy charge.
As a point of interest, Copernicus' books were never actually banned. Their inclusion on the Index was donec corrigantur (till they be corrected). The correction in question was that Copernicus' theory be presented as a hypothesis rather than as the undisputed truth. The corrected version was already in publication at the time of Galileo's trial. Further, while Copernicus' works were completely taken off the Index in 1835, actual scientific evidence of stellar parallax wasn't discovered till 1837.
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesd1. I've already posted excerpts from Wikipedia articles showing that Tychonism was the dominant model in European astronomy till the 1700s.
I take it, then, that scientists in Protestant countries had nothing to fear from the Inquisition? If so, then the reason scientists did not accept Galileo's model to be true until the 18th century was not because they feared the Inquisition; but because they recognized that his model was simply not the best one around (at the time).
From the Inqui ...[text shortened]... ointed that out, could not the Inquisition have charged him based on the theological issue?[/b]
2. The standard and level of proof being talked about here is scientific proof. E.g. stellar parallax in the case of the heliocentric model.
3. Could you clarify your late edit? Specifically, by "theological issue" do you mean Galileo's theory itself or his action in pointing out that his theory contradicts established interpretation of Scripture?
Originally posted by lucifershammer3. Could you clarify your late edit? Specifically, by "theological issue" do you mean Galileo's theory itself or his action in pointing out that his theory contradicts established interpretation of Scripture?
1. I've already posted excerpts from Wikipedia articles showing that Tychonism was the dominant model in European astronomy till the 1700s.
2. The standard and level of proof being talked about here is scientific proof. E.g. stellar parallax in the case of the heliocentric model.
3. Could you clarify your late edit? Specifically, by "theological ...[text shortened]... action in pointing out that his theory contradicts established interpretation of Scripture?
I meant in actually pointing out that his theory contradicts established interpretation of Scripture. It was meant as a technical/juridical question. For example, it is pointed out to G. that his theory contradicts the stop-the-sun = day-longer story in the Bible. G's reply: "Then the Bible must be wrong on that score."
With regard to your first two points, let me draw an analogy. Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow shared the Nobel Prize in physics (with Abdus Salam) for their development of the “standard theory.” The standard theory, as I understand it, is currently the “dominant theory.” Now Glashow claims that “string theory” is really not science because there is no way to experimentally test it. Weinberg seems more open, saying that he would be surprised if something doesn’t come out of string theory. (I’m not aware of any theological questions vis-à-vis string theory; maybe there are some—for the sake of the analogy, let’s suppose there are.)
In the meantime, who is the arbiter to decide what and how string theorists may write about their theory? Churches (if there are theological issues, anyway)? The legislative branch of the government? The courts?
Or the scientific community as a whole in the form of peer review, and open argument and counter-argument? How should it have been done in the past?
Again, should Einstein have been prohibited from publishing his theories until after there was adequate empirical evidence?
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerWikipedia and you are full of it. Why you keep lying I have no idea; Brahe's ideas were NEVER dominant and they would have been dropped to an intellectual curiousity a lot faster if people weren't being threatened with death for writing a different theory.
1. I've already posted excerpts from Wikipedia articles showing that Tychonism was the dominant model in European astronomy till the 1700s.
2. The standard and level of proof being talked about here is scientific proof. E.g. stellar parallax in the case of the heliocentric model.
3. Could you clarify your late edit? Specifically, by "theological action in pointing out that his theory contradicts established interpretation of Scripture?
This whole thing is ridiculous; LH is pretending that the Church simply disagreed about some astronomical theory because they weren't convinced it was in line with observed facts! Is anybody, besides him, so gullible or intellectually dishonest as to believe that? The Bible said the Sun stopped; the Sun couldn't stop unless it was moving, ergo believing it didn't move made you a heretic. It had absolutely ZERO to do with science.
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesd1. It might be clearer if I reproduce what Cardinal Bellarmine (then head of the Roman Inquisition) wrote:
[b]3. Could you clarify your late edit? Specifically, by "theological issue" do you mean Galileo's theory itself or his action in pointing out that his theory contradicts established interpretation of Scripture?
I meant in actually pointing out that his theory contradicts established interpretation of Scripture. It was meant as a technical/juridical prohibited from publishing his theories until after there was adequate empirical evidence?[/b]
I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.[1]
Simply pointing out that his theory contradicts established interpretation of Scripture is not heresy. What Galileo does write, however, is this:
Hence I think that I may reasonably conclude that whenever the Bible has occasion to speak of any physical conclusion (especially those which are very abstruse and hard to understand), the rule has been observed of avoiding confusion in the minds of the common people which would render them contumacious toward the higher mysteries.[2]
Here, he is making a positive interpretation of Scripture - which is what allowed the Inquisition to "get" him.
2. I think you might have misunderstood my position. I'm not asserting that the Church had the right to impose restrictions on Galileo's scientific work, nor that it had the right to [wrongly] punish him for heresy. What I am pointing out is that, as a practical matter, Galileo would not have been brought up before the Inquisition if he had simply focused on his science and left the PR and theology well alone. Further, if Galileo had been able to prove his theories, no matter how irksome his model to the Ptolemaic-Aristotelians, they could not have called his theory heresy.
I hope that makes my position clear.
---
[1] http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1615bellarmine-letter.html
[2] http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.html
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder1. Read the sub-thread with vistesd above.
Who are you or your idiot Church to tell Galileo how and to whom he could present his scientific theories?? I cannot believe what you are writing; surely you can't actually believe it?? Are you that brainwashed?
Thanks for the utterly ridiculous nitpicking on Copernicius; the fact remains that his books, as written by him, were banned for 2 centuries after Galileo.
2. Now you're just being disingenous. I've already pointed out that Copernicus' works were not "banned" (in the modern sense) for even half a century, much less two.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderno1:"Wikipedia and you are full of it. "
Wikipedia and you are full of it. Why you keep lying I have no idea; Brahe's ideas were NEVER dominant and they would have been dropped to an intellectual curiousity a lot faster if people weren't being threatened with death for writing a different theory.
This whole thing is ridiculous; LH is pretending that the Church simply disagreed about som rgo believing it didn't move made you a heretic. It had absolutely ZERO to do with science.
That's the best you can come up with? The facts don't agree with your position so I (and Wikipedia - a source you have no problems citing when it suits your purposes) are "full of it"?
no1:"Brahe's ideas were NEVER dominant and they would have been dropped to an intellectual curiousity a lot faster if people weren't being threatened with death for writing a different theory."
You keep repeating this with absolutely no backing evidence. Did you take an advanced degree in the History of Science while we were looking away? On the contrary, all the evidence vistesd and I presented here points to the opposite.
no1:"LH is pretending that the Church simply disagreed about some astronomical theory because they weren't convinced it was in line with observed facts! ... The Bible said the Sun stopped; the Sun couldn't stop unless it was moving, ergo believing it didn't move made you a heretic. It had absolutely ZERO to do with science."
Wrong! Read what Cardinal Bellarmine wrote (I've quoted it in my previous post) - Church theologians would've been forced to change their stance on the relevant Scripture passages if Galileo had presented scientific proof of his theory.
Originally posted by lucifershammer1. Then that was (is?) the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. On that basis, he would not, I think, have had a problem with the Lutherans—he might have with the Calvinists.
1. It might be clearer if I reproduce what Cardinal Bellarmine (then head of the Roman Inquisition) wrote:
[quote]I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to ...[text shortened]... /mod/1615bellarmine-letter.html
[2] http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.html
2. I think I understand. Let me just spin it back to you to be sure: (a) You are not arguing that the church was/is justified in suppressing scientific writings, proven or not, for theological reasons. (b) Even so, if G. had been able to “prove” his theories, the church as it was constituted at that time would not have been able to deem his theory heretical (I assume the same holds for the “conditional ban” of Copernicus’ works).
Given (a), it is probably moot at this point to pursue my questions about how and by whom adequate “proof” would be determined. This is all, of course, a very live issue here in the States—driven principally by Protestants of Calvinist or Anabaptist descent.