B
BlackFriar
Guest
If you cannot work that out for yourself, from what has been said or simply by reading up on the incident online I dont think you are sufficiently informed or up to speed yet to enter the conversation sorry.
- Status
K
KevinK
Guest
Nice non-answer.
B
buffalo
Guest
Galilieo was wrong - the sun is not the center of the universe.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
You dont yet deserve a response…and the sulky tone simply demonstrates this.
B
buffalo
Guest
Exoplanet Census Suggests Earth Is Special after All
PLANCK SATELLITE CONFIRMS WMAP FINDINGS: UNIVERSE IS NOT COPERNICAN
The Modern World is Faced with the Breach of a Far Reaching Paradigm
idvolution.blogspot.com
PLANCK SATELLITE CONFIRMS WMAP FINDINGS: UNIVERSE IS NOT COPERNICAN
The Modern World is Faced with the Breach of a Far Reaching Paradigm
Exoplanet Census Suggests Earth Is Special after All
IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com
B
buffalo
Guest
Some exoplanets orbiting red giant stars may just be a mirage
www.newscientist.com
Some exoplanets orbiting red giant stars may just be a mirage
A trick of the light Some exoplanets around red giant stars may be no more than an optical illusion. Variations in starlight that appear to be caused by orbiting worlds could come from ripples in the stars’ surfaces instead. One method for finding stars relies on measuring changes in the star’s...
www.newscientist.com
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Personally I stopped reading these flat earth type babblings af the following sentence:
B
buffalo
Guest
Scientific American is a flat earth magazine? I didn’t know that…
B
BlackFriar
Guest
How strange, I comment on J Public’s rather stretched definition of what the Copernican revolution was from 2013 via a blog (and he is an engineer not a historian or even an astrologer nor a theologian) … and somehow you believe I have condemned SA as a magazine that promotes the view the earth is flat.
G
guanophore
Guest
We all have a responsibility to study our faith. You have raised an excellent question worthy of research. Some members here gave you a head start by locating some materials and shedding some light on the issue. Now it is up to you to study and show thyself approved.
B
buffalo
Guest
BTW, Galileo, a year before he died recanted his position. He was a member of an anti-church organization. Then God got a hold of him and he converted.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
i was under the impression he was Catholic for most of his life. Wasn’t he the friend of Pope Urban VIII before his house arrest?
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
They found letter in the early 1900’s to his friend Rinuccini
Galileo to Francesco Rinuccini, 29 March 1641
“The falsity of the Copernican system should not in any way be
Wootton writes:
“Urban VIII regarded the argument of the Dialogue as not only
disloyal but impious. Here, as elsewhere, his judgment was
sound. Galileo always acknowledged the authority of the
Church, and always claimed to be a pious Catholic. But a
distinction needs to be drawn between his official position and
his private convictions. In the twenty volumes of his works
there is a very striking absence of evidence suggesting any
private piety. Reading his letters, there is no sign—or almost
no sign—of his saying his prayers, listening to sermons, or
reading either the Scriptures or the fathers of the Church. There
is no indication that he believed in sin, contrition and
redemption. He avoids all mention of Jesus. Galileo was no
Christian: we can see well enough behind the public persona to
be fairly sure of this, and we have the confirmatory testimony
of Castelli.” Galileo: Watcher of the Skies. Author: David Wootton
Galileo to Francesco Rinuccini, 29 March 1641
“The falsity of the Copernican system should not in any way be
called into question, above all, not by Catholics, since we have
the unshakeable authority of the Sacred Scripture, interpreted
by the most erudite theologians, whose consensus gives us
certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the
center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth. The
conjectures employed by Copernicus and his followers in
maintaining the contrary thesis are all sufficiently rebutted by
that most solid argument deriving from the omnipotence of
God. He is able to bring about in different ways, indeed, in an
infinite number of ways, things that, according to our opinion
and observation, appear to happen in one particular way. We
should not seek to shorten the hand of God and boldly insist on
something beyond the limits of our competence …”
Wootton writes:“Urban VIII regarded the argument of the Dialogue as not only
disloyal but impious. Here, as elsewhere, his judgment was
sound. Galileo always acknowledged the authority of the
Church, and always claimed to be a pious Catholic. But a
distinction needs to be drawn between his official position and
his private convictions. In the twenty volumes of his works
there is a very striking absence of evidence suggesting any
private piety. Reading his letters, there is no sign—or almost
no sign—of his saying his prayers, listening to sermons, or
reading either the Scriptures or the fathers of the Church. There
is no indication that he believed in sin, contrition and
redemption. He avoids all mention of Jesus. Galileo was no
Christian: we can see well enough behind the public persona to
be fairly sure of this, and we have the confirmatory testimony
of Castelli.” Galileo: Watcher of the Skies. Author: David Wootton
Last edited:
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
fascinating. but why did he become friends with Pope Urban VIII? If he wasn’t a pious Catholic then why become friends with the head of the Church. Even before Pope Urban VIII became Pope, him and Galileo Galilei were still friends no?
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, I believe they were.
B
buffalo
Guest
Further, Wooton writes:
…Galileo’s central but unspoken claim was that if one had a
proper idea of nature then one could dispense with the
Christian idea of an omnipotent, providential God who had
created the universe and would judge the souls of men and
replace it, on the one hand, with a Platonic idea of God as the
Supreme Mathematician, indifferent to the affairs of men, and
on the other hand, with nature as the anima mundi.
…Galileo’s view of movement is compatible with the idea of
an eternal universe, and that if the universe is eternal, one can
dismiss all arguments from the first cause or the first mover,
get rid of God and become an atheist
…Galileo’s central but unspoken claim was that if one had a
proper idea of nature then one could dispense with the
Christian idea of an omnipotent, providential God who had
created the universe and would judge the souls of men and
replace it, on the one hand, with a Platonic idea of God as the
Supreme Mathematician, indifferent to the affairs of men, and
on the other hand, with nature as the anima mundi.
…Galileo’s view of movement is compatible with the idea of
an eternal universe, and that if the universe is eternal, one can
dismiss all arguments from the first cause or the first mover,
get rid of God and become an atheist
Last edited:
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
well then if this is true then clearly the church did not hear this when Galileo was not under house arrest. Right?
Also didn’t the universe come from nothing? isn’t it finite?
B
buffalo
Guest
I am not sure how much of this was known.
Wootton
“My account of Galileo in this book has been novel in three
significant respects: I have emphasized his early
Copernicanism, his reluctant empiricism and his private
irreligion. I have also stressed his extraordinary intellectual
ambition, his enormous vanity and his capacity for selfdestruction:
Galileo was no secular saint, although he was
capable of pretending that he was.”
June 7, 1639
Benedetto Castelli, Galileo’s old friend, former pupil and longtime
intellectual companion, wrote to him from Rome. They
had known each other for at least thirty years. They were so
close that in 1620 Cavalieri had assumed that anything written
to one of them would be known by the other. Each had reason
to trust the other completely. And in questions concerning the
religion of Galileo we can trust Castelli…
Castelli has heard news of Galileo tht has made him weep with
joy, for he has heard that Galileo has given his soul to Christ.
Castelli immediately refers to the parable of the laborers in the
vineyard….he turns to the crucifixion, and in particular to the
two thieves crucified on either side of Christ.
Castelli’s invocation of the parable…and two thieves…is clear
and unambiguous. He believes Galileo is coming to
Christianity at the last moment, but not too late to save his soul.
There is no conceivable interpretation of this letter which is
compatible with the generally held view that Galileo was,
throughout his career, a believing Catholic. It will not do, for
example, to suggest that Galileo had previously been a
believer, but had been lax in the practice of his religion.
Castelli allows himself to discuss Galileo’s unbelief only
because he has been given to understand that he is now, at long
last, a believer. There are no further letters like this
one….Castelli’s letter cannot tell us what really happened to
Galileo in May 1639; but what is clear is what Castelli had
always understood about his close friend: that he was no
believer. And if anyone was in a position to know if Galileo
was or was not a believer it was Castelli.
Wootton
“My account of Galileo in this book has been novel in three
significant respects: I have emphasized his early
Copernicanism, his reluctant empiricism and his private
irreligion. I have also stressed his extraordinary intellectual
ambition, his enormous vanity and his capacity for selfdestruction:
Galileo was no secular saint, although he was
capable of pretending that he was.”
June 7, 1639
Benedetto Castelli, Galileo’s old friend, former pupil and longtime
intellectual companion, wrote to him from Rome. They
had known each other for at least thirty years. They were so
close that in 1620 Cavalieri had assumed that anything written
to one of them would be known by the other. Each had reason
to trust the other completely. And in questions concerning the
religion of Galileo we can trust Castelli…
Castelli has heard news of Galileo tht has made him weep with
joy, for he has heard that Galileo has given his soul to Christ.
Castelli immediately refers to the parable of the laborers in the
vineyard….he turns to the crucifixion, and in particular to the
two thieves crucified on either side of Christ.
Castelli’s invocation of the parable…and two thieves…is clear
and unambiguous. He believes Galileo is coming to
Christianity at the last moment, but not too late to save his soul.
There is no conceivable interpretation of this letter which is
compatible with the generally held view that Galileo was,
throughout his career, a believing Catholic. It will not do, for
example, to suggest that Galileo had previously been a
believer, but had been lax in the practice of his religion.
Castelli allows himself to discuss Galileo’s unbelief only
because he has been given to understand that he is now, at long
last, a believer. There are no further letters like this
one….Castelli’s letter cannot tell us what really happened to
Galileo in May 1639; but what is clear is what Castelli had
always understood about his close friend: that he was no
believer. And if anyone was in a position to know if Galileo
was or was not a believer it was Castelli.
B
buffalo
Guest
The universe was created ex-nihilo.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
- Do clearly define exactly what “position” he “recanted” (whatever that means for someone longtime under the thumb of the authorities and growing old and frail but three years from death).
- If that solves the Galileo issue why did JPII apologise posthumously do you think?
Last edited:
- Status