Copernicus and Galileo

[EtienneGilson]

Batjacboy:

Actually, that’s not the case, for the following reasons:

1. His trial dealt with the issue of his disobedience; the scientific validity of Copernicanism and the relation of science and Scripture did not surface at the trial (see Ferngren, Rowland, etc.). Therefore “the proceedings” did not condemn heliocentrism nor did they promote geocentrism. These issues were thrown into the condemnation as an afterthought, which is why I stated in my first post, “recent scholars admit that the theologians should not have included the scientific theories in the condemnation.”

Huh? Perhaps you should look at the primary documents themselves. Furtheremore, Galielo was brought before the Inquisition twice and was formally warned by Urban VIII in 1624 law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileochronology.html

Galileo’s First Deposition (12 April 1633)
*Q: Since, as he says, he came to Rome to be able to have the resolution and the truth regarding the above, what then was decided about this matter.
A: Regarding the controversy which centered on the above-mentioned opinion of the sun’s stability and earth’s motion, it was decided by the Holy Congregation of the Index that this opinion, taken absolutely, is repugnant to Holy Scripture and is to be admitted only suppositionally, in the way that Copernicus takes it.
Q: Whether he was then notified of the said decision, and by whom.
A: I was indeed notified of the said decision of the Congregation of the Index, and I was notified by Lord Cardinal Bellarmine.
Q: What the Most Eminent Bellarmine told him about the said decision, whether he said anything else about the matter, and if so what.
A: Lord Cardinal Bellarmine told me that Copernicus’s opinion could be held suppositionally, as Copernicus himself had held it. His Eminence knew that I held it suppositionally, namely in the way that Copernicus held it, as you can see from an answer by the same Lord Cardinal to a letter of Father Master Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Provincial of the Carmelites; I have a copy of this, and in it one finds these words: “I say that it seems to me that Your Paternity and Mr. Galileo are proceeding prudently by limiting yourselves to speaking suppositionally and not absolutely.” This letter by the said Lord Cardinal is dated 12 April 1615. Moreover, he told me that otherwise, namely taken absolutely, the opinion could be neither held nor defended.
Q: What was decided and then made known to him precisely in the month of February 1616.
A: In the month of February 1616, Lord Cardinal Bellarmine told me that since Copernicus’s opinion, taken absolutely, was contrary to Holy Scripture, it could be neither held nor defended, but it could be taken and used suppositionally. In conformity with this I keep a certificate by Lord Cardinal Bellarmine himself, dated 26 May 1616, in which he says that Copernicus’s opinion cannot be held or defended, being against Holy Scripture. I present a copy of this certificate, and here it is. And he showed a sheet of paper with twelve lines of writing on one side only, beginning “We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, have” and ending “on this 26th day of May 1616,” signed “The same mentioned above, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine.” This evidence was accepted and marked with the letter B. Then he added: I have the original of this certificate with me in Rome, and it is written all in the hand of the above-mentioned Lord Cardinal Bellarmine.

• law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/depositions.html

I am in agreement with the CE on this position.

Can it be said that either Paul V or Urban VIII so committed himself to the doctrine of geocentricism as to impose it upon the Church as an article of faith, and so to teach as pope what is now acknowledged to be untrue? That both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. **The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did. ** newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

You should at least site your sources since much of what you said is obviously taken:stolen from the CE article.

 

[Batjacboy]

Etienne,

Now I realize what the problem is–the website you keep quoting from is biased rubbish.

Example 1: 1992: Catholic Church formally admits that Galileo’s views on the solar system are correct.

Obvious rubbish, since a) Galileo said the orbits were circular, when they’re ellipses, something Kepler determined LONG BEFORE Galileo, and which everyone now acknowleges; b) Galileo said the earth’s motion around the sun, as well as its rotation, caused the tides, which is not only incorrect, but both Roger Bacon and Kepler had already figured out that the tides were caused by the effect of the moon, LONG BEFORE Gaileo; and c) the Church’s statement, which I have right here in front of me on my desktop, does not “formally admit that Galileo’s views on the solar system are correct.”

Example 2: **March 1616: The Congregation of the Index bans Copernicus’ On the Revolutions until corrections can be added. **

Obvious rubbish, since the corrections (less than 12) to be made were deletions, not additions. No one in the Vatican thought anything needed to be added to Copernicus’ work: they wanted deleted those phrases which seemed to imply that Copernicanism was proven fact.

Example 3: The website you quote leaves out the fact that Galileo perjured himself, claiming before the Inquisitors that he had never held the Copernican position, and that his dialogue was actually a refutation of Copernicanism. Only after the Inquisitors presented him with his file of statements, proving his perjury, did he “offer to refute it in another book.”

I put in my posts references to Rowland and Ferngren. I know Rowland is NOT a Catholic, and I do not believe Ferngren is. Both are extremely well-respected historians, who have authored texts that have held up under careful scrutiny, having been verified by the original documents. I also quoted von Gebler, who is a Protestant.

You quoted some website.

Proving, once again, that you can’t necessarily believe what you get of the Internet.

If you want to know the truth, read a half-dozen textbooks. No website goes into enough detail to represent the facts accurately.

 

[trth_skr]

Batjacboy:

…Interestingly, although the heliocentric theory was proven correct (200 years later), …

This is completely untrue. The heliocentric (nor the acentric, barycentric solar system) has not been proven, or demonstrated (in a manner distinguishable from counter movement of the uiniverse).

This is and remains a [philosophical] presumption.

This presumption stems form the philosophical view that therermust be a naturalistic explanation for cosmology / cosmogony- i.e., the only way the earth could have ended up motionless in the center of the universe is if God had willed it so. This modern man cannot accept.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[EtienneGilson]

Batjacboy:

Etienne,

Now I realize what the problem is–the website you keep quoting from is biased rubbish.

Huh? AmcB wrote:

The man who wrote the book said he used primary sources for his book, but I don’t know for sure. Does anyone know where I can find good primary sources at?

I gave two websites with the primary sources, both University websites. I have only cited primary sources up until the Catholic Encyclopedia source. I guess the primary resources are just rubish. I am glad that we have historians like you around.

All you complaints against law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileo.html are not only moot but hilarious since it is a collection of primary sources! You quote from the chronology…who cares! The primary sources proove that you are wrong and that the Copernican system was not only included in the condemnation but also in the trial.

You quoted von Gebler (1876)…the exact same quote which appears in the CE article…making me suspect that you are not actually using the book, rather just quoting someone quoting it. Nor did you ever give any evidence that you have read Fergren or Rowland (by the way, Rowland is not a historian and Ferngren was only the editor of the book “Science and Religion”…the article on Galileo was written by Richard Blackwell), just a passing reference to the fact that they apparently believe that the Copernican system wasn’t brought up in the trial…a fact that has been disproven from the correspondance and transcript of the trial in 1633.

 

[vern_humphrey]

trth_skr:

This is completely untrue. The heliocentric (nor the acentric, barycentric solar system) has not been proven, or demonstrated (in a manner distinguishable from counter movement of the uiniverse).

This is and remains a [philosophical] presumption.

This presumption stems form the philosophical view that therermust be a naturalistic explanation for cosmology / cosmogony- i.e., the only way the earth could have ended up motionless in the center of the universe is if God had willed it so. This modern man cannot accept.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

In fact, the heliocentric theory has been disproven.

The sun is not the center of the universe – it is only the center of our own solar system. Like the other stars in the Milky Way galaxy, the sun orbits the center of the galaxy.

 

[Batjacboy]

EtienneGilson:

You quoted von Gebler (1876)…the exact same quote which appears in the CE article…making me suspect that you are not actually using the book, rather just quoting someone quoting it.

Etienne, you have now completely lost all of your credibility.

I happen to have a first-edition copy of von Gebler, sitting right in front of me, which I’ve read and referenced for several years.

Nor did you ever give any evidence that you have read Fergren or Rowland (by the way, Ferngren was only the editor of the book “Science and Religion”…the article on Galileo was written by Richard Blackwell), just a passing reference to the fact that they apparently believe that the Copernican system wasn’t brought up in the trial…a fact that has been disproven from the correspondance and transcript of the trial in 1633.

More nonsense. First, I have read Ferngren, and part of the information I quoted above came directly from his text. And the comment about Blackwell is ludicrous, unless you think the only references to Galileo in Ferngren are from the Blackwell chapter. It’s also ridiculous to say that what was written in Ferngren is a “passing reference.” The issues are dealt with extensively (see pages 108-115). Second, I’ve read Rowland twice. And to claim that his Chapter 23 is nothing but a “passing reference” could only be done if you ignored essentially all of that 13 page chapter which deals with this issue.

I guess the primary resources are just rubish.

Unless you can prove that the authors on the websites you’re quoting have actually gone to Rome and evaluated the original Vatican manuscripts, in the original Latin (which the historians I read have done, and have documented), you’re still guilty of quoting potentially unreliable information off Internet sites.

Nice try, though. Cheap, irresponsible debate tactic, accusing someone of not having read from the texts he quotes, but nice try.

 

[Batjacboy]

vern humphrey:

In fact, the heliocentric theory has been disproven.

The sun is not the center of the universe – it is only the center of our own solar system. Like the other stars in the Milky Way galaxy, the sun orbits the center of the galaxy.

You’re right, and I agree, if you define Heliocentrism as the theory that the Sun is at the center of the Universe, which most do.

But there are those who define heliocentrism as the theory that the Sun is at the center of the Solar System (which you’ll find in a lot of dictionaries, and which was how many astronomers viewed it at the time of Galileo).

When Bessel docuemented stellar parallax in 1838, it didn’t prove heliocentrism, but it was considered support in favor of the theory, using the second (solar system) definition.

 

[Batjacboy]

Etienne, one last point:

EtienneGilson:

All you complaints against law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileo.html are not only moot but hilarious since it is a collection of primary sources! You quote from the chronology…who cares!

We should all care, since any website with a clearly biased chronology must have an agenda, and therefore their “primary sources” are suspect, especially if they contradict the findings of reputable historians (which may be why they publish on websites and don’t write textbooks which can be critically reviewed). It seems poor scholarship to claim that a website will have a chronology full of errors, but everything else must be deadly accurate.

Anti-Catholic websites quote from “primary sources” all the time, but we don’t fall for them.

 

[Batjacboy]

Etienne,

Some examples: The author of your website has an essay on Galileo (click on the Title of the website, above the author’s name). In that essay he states the following:

“It is widely believed by historians that the reported injunction of Galileo was “a false injunction”: the injunction never happened, but a false report was maliciously planted in the file by one of Galileo’s enemies. Seventeen years later, Galileo would stand before the Inquisition charged with violating an injunction that was, in all likelihood, never issued against him.”

As any reputable historian will tell you (see Ferngren, see Rowland, see Shea, Artigas), this “false injunction” theory “has been abandoned” as Ferngren/Blackwell writes. Any reputable historian will also be able to p(name removed by moderator)oint the beginning of this myth: the 19th century, and the point when it was abandoned (decades ago, long before your wesite author wrote his essay (2002).

So, this one example alone proves your website author is biased, even titling the section, “The Admonition and False Injunction of 1616.”

But he goes on to mention “the threat of torture…” but never bothers to mention that Galileo was threatened with torture as the punishment for perjuring himself (he denied that he had ever held the Copernican view (a denial you can read in the site’s “primary sources”)).

He continues with “the Pope insisting upon . . . ‘formal prison’”, when any reputable historian will tell you that Galileo was given house arrest, not prison, by direct order from Pope Urban.

If the author of your website has an axe to grind, why do you keep quoting from his site?

 

[EtienneGilson]

We should all care, since any website with a clearly biased chronology must have an agenda, and therefore their “primary sources” are suspect, especially if they contradict the findings of reputable historians (which may be why they publish on websites and don’t write textbooks which can be critically reviewed).

The website quotes the source of the translation:

The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History by Maurice A. Finocchiaro, pp. 256-62, 277-79, 286-87 (University of California Press, 1989)

If you are claiming that whoever put up those transcripts deliberately altered them to make the Copernican system come up in the trial, then attribute the translation to a reputable source…I think that you have to support that claim. Since you seem to have such an extensive library on Galileo, I would assume you could easily write out the first deposition on the 12th of April 1633 to show us just how much the actual depositon differs from the source at law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/depositions.html

However, since the papal condemnation at law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html coincides exactly with a Catholic source fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/1630galileo.html I am led to believe that your attacks are completely unfounded and that you have either deliberately misrepresented the case or have failed to do the requisite research.

. It’s also ridiculous to say that what was written in Ferngren is a “passing reference.” The issues are dealt with extensively (see pages 108-115). Second, I’ve read Rowland twice. And to claim that his Chapter 23 is nothing but a “passing reference”

Perhaps you should reread what I said:

• Nor did you ever give any evidence that you have read Fergren or Rowland (by the way, Rowland is not a historian and Ferngren was only the editor of the book “Science and Religion”…the article on Galileo was written by Richard Blackwell), just a passing reference to the fact that they apparently believe that the Copernican system wasn’t brought up in the trial…*

Note I said YOU gave a passing reference. You did not site them; quote them or anyhting but drop their names to support your claim that the Copernican system did not come up in the trial but was added to the condemnation.

I happen to have a first-edition copy of von Gebler, sitting right in front of me, which I’ve read and referenced for several years.

If you happen to have a first edition von Gebler, I am impressed because a used copy of the first English translation (1879) sells for about $100 US…but you said you had a first editon…even rarer (1876) and in German. But then you should have no problem simply giving a page number for the quote and giving the preceeding and proceeding sentences. And you should be able to explain why you add in parentheses the exact same information that the CE added.

You are really grasping at straws here. First, you make desperate attempts to discredit the primary resources. Then you drop names and misrepresent works and authors (Rowland a historian, Frengren being the author on the section of Galileo…or perhpas you are claiming that Ferngren states that in the introduction to amazon.com/gp/reader/0801870380/ref=sib_rdr_ex/103-8234690-8007040?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00F&j=0#reader-page ) and finally you build strawmen arguments verging on conspiracy theories.

 

[trth_skr]

Here is part of the actual condemnation of Galileo (from my blog):

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo 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 centre of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples… …and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scriptures:

The Sacred Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Sacred Faith, by command of His Highness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

…We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world;…

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[EtienneGilson]

Thank you trth_skr but I have already posted the condemnation (from the fordham site) and Batjacboy responded

1. His trial dealt with the issue of his disobedience; the scientific validity of Copernicanism and the relation of science and Scripture did not surface at the trial (see Ferngren, Rowland, etc.). Therefore “the proceedings” did not condemn heliocentrism nor did they promote geocentrism. These issues were thrown into the condemnation as an afterthought, which is why I stated in my first post, “recent scholars admit that the theologians should not have included the scientific theories in the condemnation.”

So the real question is not the condemnation but rather the actual proceedings and Batjacboy is questioning the validity of the transcript of the proceedings that I put forward. If you happen to have another transcript of the proceedings (such as the 4 depositions) than that would be more helpful.

 

[Batjacboy]

EtienneGilson:

If you happen to have a first edition von Gebler, I am impressed because a used copy of the first English translation (1879) sells for about $100 US…but you said you had a first editon…even rarer (1876) and in German. But then you should have no problem simply giving a page number for the quote and giving the preceeding and proceeding sentences. And you should be able to explain why you add in parentheses the exact same information that the CE added.

(I did, in fact pay three figures for the von Gebler.)

Now, to answer your challenge:

The page # = 116.

Sentence before: "The Pope said to Cardinal Hohenzollern, who, at Galileo’s request, warmly took up the question, and had observed in a conversation on it with Urban, that great caution was required in dealing with it, “that the Church neither had condemned nor ever would condemn the doctrine as heretical, but only as rash.”

Sentence after: “And in the second place, this commission had, in 1616, not condemned this opinion as “rash,” but “foolish and absurd philosophically, and formally heretical,” and this without the papal confirmation, so that no condemnation by the Chruch could be said to exist.”

And the reason why the parenthetical phrase was added is so that those who didn’t know what “it” was, would know (you must have seen this on all those websites you visit; this has been done many times before, not just in the Catholic Encyclopedia–it’s how the meaning is made clear.)

You are really grasping at straws here.

.

Not at all. The original statement I made stands:

Galileo was brought before the Inquisition in 1633 for disobedience; the scientific validity of Copernicanism and the relation of science and Scripture did not surface at the trial.

If you go back to your website and read the Inquistors questions to Galileo, what you see is that there was no debate on the validity of Copernicanism. They brought up the Copernican theory ONLY in questions relating directly to the violation of the injunction. If you had read the transcripts from 1616, you would have realized that the Copernican issue had, to the Inquisitors, already been settled (through their investigations–long story–you’ll find it in textbooks; I’ve never seen it in detail on a website); therefore there was no reason to have its validity resurface at the trial of 1633.

First, you make desperate attempts to discredit the primary resources.

Not so. I discredited the website you quoted because the author wrote a biased, inaccurate essay (which I clearly demonstrated) and I also said websites on this subject are incomplete (which you’ve demonstrated by not understanding how the 1616 transcripts relate to the 1633 transcripts you quote). Then I asked the general question, “If part of the website is biased, why automatically assume the rest is valid?”

Then you drop names and misrepresent works and authors (Rowland a historian, Frengren being the author on the section of Galileo

“Historian” (dictionary definition): One who writes or compiles a chronological record of events.

Rowland qualifies; his book has been very well-received; denying him the title historian simply because he’s not a university professor is a junior high school-level debate tactic; address what he said, then (try to) make the claim he doesn’t qualify as a historian.

If you claim that I ever said Ferngren wrote the chapter on Galileo, you obviously didn’t read that post, or the one that followed, or you’re being dishonest. Allow me to quote what I said again:

“His trial dealt with the issue of his disobedience; the scientific validity of Copernicanism and the relation of science and Scripture did not surface at the trial (see Ferngren, Rowland, etc.).”

I referenced both texts; I made no mention of which chapters, assuming anyone with access to the texts knows how to use an index.

and finally you build strawmen arguments verging on conspiracy theories.

Not so. My contention is that if you read complete texts of the entire Galileo incident, and not websites with abridged information, you would get the true picture of what the Church did and why.

Instead, you insist on quoting “primary sources” from a two-month period when the Galileo incident covered 22 years.

(continued below)

 

[Batjacboy]

Instead of using the following debate tactics:

1. accusing your opponents of not having/reading the sources they quote
2. misrepresenting their previous posts and then arguing trivialities ("Rowland’s not a ‘historian’; Ferngren’s text chapter wasn’t written directly by Ferngren)
3. throwing out the strawmen canard

get a textbook, any textbook, on Galileo written in the last, say, 20 years, read it cover to cover (or just start in 1611 with his first trip to Rome; that’s when it all started), then read the 1633 trial transcripts in chronological context.

Your conclusions will be different, as reputable historians have shown.

 

[EtienneGilson]

Thank you for the von Gebler quotation.

So in other words, you have simply ignored your statement

the scientific validity of Copernicanism and the relation of science and Scripture did not surface at the trial (see Ferngren, Rowland, etc.). Therefore “the proceedings” did not condemn heliocentrism nor did they promote geocentrism. These issues were thrown into the condemnation as an afterthought

and the fact that it seems clear from the proceedings that Copernicanism and the relationship to scripture did “come up”.

*Q: What was decided and then made known to him precisely in the month of February 1616.

A: In the month of February 1616, Lord Cardinal Bellarmine told me that since Copernicus’s opinion, taken absolutely, was contrary to Holy Scripture, it could be neither held nor defended, but it could be taken and used suppositionally. In conformity with this I keep a certificate by Lord Cardinal Bellarmine himself, dated 26 May 1616, in which he says that Copernicus’s opinion cannot be held or defended, being against Holy Scripture.

• law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/depositions.html

I have no problem with the only quote other that von Gebler that you provide, “recent scholars admit that the theologians should not have included the scientific theories in the condemnation.”
but that doesn’t mean that scientific theories were not brought up in the trial. If either Blackwell (Ferngren) or Rowland make the statement that Copernicanism and the relation to Scripture did not surface at the trial, a simple quotation would suffice.

The fact is that the person who started this thread asked for some primary sources. I provided two links to primary sources. You leveled a compaint about one primary source being tainted. No evidence has been given that the primary source is anything other than what it claims to be, a transcript from a reputable historian.

The primary source could be hosted on a KKK website, as long as the transcript is accurate it suffices. I own a copy of Chesterton’s Heretics/Orthodoxy and Augustine’s Confessions published by Thomas Nelson (who also publishes Foxe’s Book of Martyrs) but those are reliable, decent resources (though I often check translation of Augustine).

 

[Batjacboy]

EtienneGilson:

So in other words, you have simply ignored your statement and the fact that it seems clear from the proceedings that Copernicanism and the relationship to scripture did “come up”.

Wrong again. I will for the third time post for you my exact quote:

“His trial dealt with the issue of his disobedience; the **scientific validity ** of Copernicanism and the relation of science and Scripture did not surface at the trial (see Ferngren, Rowland, etc.).”

Notice the portions in bold. No one has ever claimed the word “Copernicus” did not arise at the trial. But the **scientific validity ** and the relation of science and Scripture did not come up for debate.

You quoted:

*Q: What was decided and then made known to him precisely in the month of February 1616.

A: In the month of February 1616, Lord Cardinal Bellarmine told me that since Copernicus’s opinion*, taken absolutely, was contrary to Holy Scripture, it could be neither held nor defended, but it could be taken and used suppositionally. In conformity with this I keep a certificate by Lord Cardinal Bellarmine himself, dated 26 May 1616, in which he says that Copernicus’s opinion cannot be held or defended, being against Holy Scripture.

A perfect quote to prove my point unequivocably. The only reason Copernicanism is mentioned here was to question Galileo about the violation of the injunction. They are not debating the validity of Copernicanism, nor are they debating their view that it is contrary to Scripture–those issues had already been settled in their minds LONG ago. Read the portion in bold type: the issue was the injunction and only the injunction. The only reason “Copernicus’s opinion” is mentioned is because that is what the **injunction ** concerned.

I have no problem with the only quote other that von Gebler that you provide, “recent scholars admit that the theologians should not have included the scientific theories in the condemnation.”
but that doesn’t mean that scientific theories were not brought up in the trial. If either Blackwell (Ferngren) or Rowland make the statement that Copernicanism and the relation to Scripture did not surface at the trial, a simple quotation would suffice

.

**From Ferngren, page 114:

“The substantive questions of the scientific truth of Copernicanism and the proper use of the Bible in relation to science did not arise at the trial itself.”**

**From Rowland, page 280:

“But the philosophical issue of Galileo’s realism versus the Church’s anti-realism did not arise at his trial, which confined itself to the fact of his having disobeyed the 1616 injunction**.”

At no time during the trial did either the **scientific validity ** or the relation of science and Scripture come up for debate.

I provided two links to primary sources. You leveled a compaint about one primary source being tainted. No evidence has been given that the primary source is anything other than what it claims to be, a transcript from a reputable historian

.

Not so. Read my previous post:

"I discredited the website you quoted because the author wrote a biased, inaccurate essay (which I clearly demonstrated)…**Then I asked the general ** question, “If part of the website is biased, why automatically assume the rest is valid?”

The essay was biased, the chronology was biased, and the comment that the rest is just “a transcript from a reputable historian” is a fairly large assumption.

Why do you assume that, given his previous biases? In other words, as I stated before:

**“If part of the website is biased, why automatically assume ** the rest is valid?”

Did you check it against Finocchiaro? I’m not saying you should, since the transcripts as they are still prove my point about the validity of Copernicanism not being raised. But why would you assume it, given the glaring faults in the rest of the website?

And why would you recommend such a website to someone else looking for truth/accuracy if you weren’t positive?

The primary source could be hosted on a KKK website, as long as the transcript is accurate it suffices

.

That’s the whole point. Until you can prove that the KKK has ENSURED that the “transcript is accurate”, would you really recommend the site, given the obvious agenda involved?

 

[EtienneGilson]

I am inclined to ask you if you know what a trial is. A trial is not a scientific discussion nor a theological debate. A trial is a trial, and it takes the laws as given and it tries a person, not ideas.

Batjacboy:

Wrong again. I will for the third time post for you my exact quote:

“His trial dealt with the issue of his disobedience; the **scientific validity ** of Copernicanism and the relation of science and Scripture did not surface at the trial (see Ferngren, Rowland, etc.).”

So by emphasizing the qualifiers you admit that your initial objection was off-topic and had nothing to do with the passage of mine you quoted. But unfortunately the qualifiers are not strong enough since it is not clear that you meant that those things were DEBATED at the trial.

The quotations you provide from Blackwell and Rowland do not support your position:

Notice the portions in bold. No one has ever claimed the word “Copernicus” did not arise at the trial. But the **scientific validity ** and the relation of science and Scripture did not come up for debate.

What debate? It was a trial.

You quoted:
**From Ferngren, page 114:

“The substantive questions of the scientific truth of Copernicanism and the proper use of the Bible in relation to science did not arise at the trial itself.”**

**From Rowland, page 280:

“But the philosophical issue of Galileo’s realism versus the Church’s anti-realism did not arise at his trial, which confined itself to the fact of his having disobeyed the 1616 injunction.”**

My original statement which you took issue with:

*Galileo might have been wrong about heliocentrism, but it is clear from the proceedings against him that not only did they condemn heliocentrism but deliberately promulgated geocentrism. *

Notice that they say exactly what I said, that the issues were condemned…not debated…condemned.

At no time during the trial did either the **scientific validity ** or the relation of science and Scripture come up for debate.

:clapping: I think that you are finally getting it. It wasn’t debated because it was taken as given that it was heretical. The trial and the condemnation make it clear that the Inquisition viewed heliocentrism as heretical and contrary to scripture. Not only that but they make it clear that geocentrism and the stationary nature of the world are likewise established.

You have effectively modified your position beyond recognition to make it fit the quotations. Unfortunately (or rather fortunately for me) now your position is indistinguishable from mine and we have nothing to debate.

And all your ranting against the website is simply more grapsing at straws. If you have a problem with the primary documents demonstrate it. The fact that the resources I have been able to verify independently hold up (such as the condemnation through Fordham) suggests that they are reliable. But perhaps this is some great conspiracy to alter the trial and not the condemnation?

Unfortunately I am currently working in France and I will not be able to return to my home in Canada until August where I have the vast majority of my book collection. Perhaps if you wait until then will purchase Finocchiaro’s book and verify the authenticity of the quotations. I however do not wish to either pay the shipping to France, nor lug around another book.

 

[Batjacboy]

EtienneGilson:

A trial is a trial, and it takes the laws as given and it tries a person, not ideas.

Which is exactly what I said when I maintained:

"The only reason Copernicanism is mentioned here was to question Galileo about the violation of the injunction. They are not debating the validity of Copernicanism, nor are they debating their view that it is contrary to Scripture–those issues had already been settled in their minds LONG ago. The issue was the injunction and only the injunction. The only reason “Copernicus’s opinion” is mentioned is because that is what the injunction concerned. "

So by emphasizing the qualifiers you admit that your initial objection was off-topic and had nothing to do with the passage of mine you quoted.

Not so. Allow me to quote again my intial objection from the March 17 post:

“His trial dealt with the issue of his disobedience; the scientific validity of Copernicanism and the relation of science and Scripture did not surface at the trial.”

Your original post, also from March 17, was:

“Galileo might have been wrong about heliocentrism, but it is clear from the proceedings against him that not only did they condemn heliocentrism but deliberately promulgated geocentrism.”

Again, as has been demonstrated, your premise is wrong. Let’s go through it:

“Galileo might have been wrong about heliocentrism”–that’s certainly true.

then: “it is clear from the proceedings against him that not only did they condemn heliocentrism but deliberately promulgated geocentrism”–that’s false, as all my quotations have shown. The Church did not condemn heliocentrism or promote geocentrism, first, in an official capacity (see all the quotes in the previous posts) and, second, the Inquistors questions during Galileo’s 4 depositions never made the scientific validity of Copenicanism an issue at the trial, which you just admitted to above:

A trial is a trial, and it tries a person, not ideas.

Again, this is the point: the trial was about Galileo’s disobedience (the person, as you say), not Copernicanism (ideas, as you say).

But unfortunately the qualifiers are not strong enough since it is not clear that you meant that those things were DEBATED at the trial.

.

Again, my original post:

“His trial **dealt with ** the issue of his disobedience; the scientific validity of Copernicanism and the relation of science and Scripture **did not surface ** at the trial.”

Again, Copernicanism was not dealt with/debated/focused upon and did not surface/arise at the trial, which refutes the point that the Church made any formal condemnation of Copernicanism at the trial.

The quotations you provide from Blackwell and Rowland do not support your position:

You quoted:
**From Ferngren, page 114:

“The substantive questions of the scientific truth of Copernicanism and the proper use of the Bible in relation to science did not arise at the trial itself.”**

**From Rowland, page 280:

“But the philosophical issue of Galileo’s realism versus the Church’s anti-realism did not arise at his trial, which confined itself to the fact of his having disobeyed the 1616 injunction**.”

My original statement which you took issue with:

*Galileo might have been wrong about heliocentrism, but it is clear from the proceedings against him that not only did they condemn heliocentrism but deliberately promulgated geocentrism. *

Notice that they say exactly what I said, that the issues were condemned…not debated…condemned.

They say nothing of the kind. Nowhere in the two quotes from Rowland and Ferngren is the issue of condemnation of Copernicanism even implied, much less stated explicitly. Read them again, and show where the terms “condemened” or “condemnation” are mentioned.

I think that you are finally getting it. It wasn’t debated because it was taken as given that it was heretical. The trial and the condemnation make it clear that the Inquisition viewed heliocentrism as heretical and contrary to scripture. Not only that but they make it clear that geocentrism and the stationary nature of the world are likewise established.

I already established this (read the post from March 21):

“those issues had already been settled in their minds LONG ago. The issue was the injunction and only the injunction. The only reason “Copernicus’s opinion” is mentioned is because that is what the injunction concerned.”

Proving that the primary sources you quote (the depositions) mention Copernicanism, not because the trial was making it the issue, but just as a means of determining whether Galileo had violated the injunction.

(continued below):

 

[Batjacboy]

(continued from above):

You have effectively modified your position beyond recognition to make it fit the quotations.

Not so. My original position was, and still is:

“His trial dealt with the issue of his disobedience; the scientific validity of Copernicanism and the relation of science and Scripture did not surface at the trial.”

I have now quoted von Gebler, Rowland, and Ferngren, page numbers included, all of whom support this premise, as do the reputable historians who have published in the last 15 years.

Unfortunately (or rather fortunately for me) now your position is indistinguishable from mine and we have nothing to debate.

If you now agree with my original premise and that of reputable historians (referenced several times) that “His trial dealt with the issue of his disobedience; the scientific validity of Copernicanism and the relation of science and Scripture did not surface at the trial”, then, yes, that topic is settled.

But there is still more to debate:

And all your ranting against the website is simply more grapsing at straws.

Not so, for the reasons I will quote again below in bold type at the very bottom of this post.

If you have a problem with the primary documents demonstrate it. The fact that the resources I have been able to verify independently hold up (such as the condemnation through Fordham) suggests that they are reliable.

As I clearly stated in my last post:

“I’m not saying you should [have to verify Finocchiaro], since the transcripts as they are still prove my point about the validity of Copernicanism not being raised.”

The issue of the deposition transcripts, as I stated, is not their validity–using them exactly as they are on the website, they still prove my point about the validity of Copernicanism not being raised, as you yourself have now conceded, when you admitted the trial was about the person of Galileo (his disobedience), not the idea of Copernicanism.

The remaining issue is, as I asked in my last post:

"But why would you assume [anything on a biased website was, in fact, authentic], given the glaring faults in the rest of the website?

And why would you recommend such a website to someone else looking for truth/accuracy if you weren’t positive?"

Unfortunately I am currently working in France and I will not be able to return to my home in Canada until August where I have the vast majority of my book collection. Perhaps if you wait until then will purchase Finocchiaro’s book and verify the authenticity of the quotations. I however do not wish to either pay the shipping to France, nor lug around another book.

As I’ve already clearly stated, twice, there’s no need, since your website transcripts, whether perfect translations or flawed, still prove my point, and the point of the historians.

But despite the fact that I answered every one of your challenges (“quote von Gebler, page number and sentences before and after”; quote Rowland, quote Ferngren, including page numbers"), you still haven’t answered my very simple questions:

**But why would you assume ** [anything on a biased website was, in fact, authentic], given the glaring faults in the rest of the website?

And why would you recommend such a website to someone else looking for truth/accuracy if you weren’t positive?"