B
buffalo
Guest
**“Science presupposes the trustworthy, intelligent structure of matter, the ‘design’ of creation.” **Pope Benedict XVI
Pope's astronomer dismisses ID and says Church was "spectacularly wrong" in its treatment of Galileo
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
S
Scoobyshme
Guest
Not moral relativism, but a change in times and administrative procedures. The Church does not claim to be infallible in matters of administration/discipline. Never has/never will. Only in matters of doctrine with regard to faith and morals. These cases have to do with administration, responsibility, authority, and obedience. Historical context is necessary to understand all this, too. A big mistake the unlearned make is to always view everything through 21st century American culture eyes. They refuse to take into consideration historical context, whereby they would understand that this is how everyone ran things (or worse) back in that day and age. And, by doing so, they make wrong conclusions.
L
Leela
Guest
Why is design in quotes?
L
Leela
Guest
It sounds like you believe people really ought to have freedom of speech and that scientists ought not have to get their facts approved by the church before publishing, but then you also want to say that the church behaved properly. Sounds like you are back sliding into moral relativism to me.
Sure you have to consider the context. But understanding why it happened isn’t the same as saying that it ought to have happened. I understand why it happened. It happened because people then did not have the same values we have now. They had not evolved morally to the degree we have today. We have learned some things about morality just as we better understand pretty much everything else since then. One of the things that we have learned is that people ought to be able to say that the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa without fear of imprisonment.
Deciding whether or not to imprison someone and force them to recant is not a mere “administrative concern.” It is a moral concern. Did the church get it right or not? Either the Church has a special way of getting morals right all through history or it is just a contingent product of its historical context like every other institution. Which is it?
Best,
Leela
B
buffalo
Guest
Actually, I do not know.
E
edwest2
Guest
Morality does not evolve. There are certain foundational principles that have always existed. What evolved to start World War II, the most destructive war in human history? It ended with the most destructive bomb in human history.
What the Church got right is explained here:
catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
God bless,
Ed
W
Wowbagger
Guest
“Spectacularly wrong” is a good summation. Although the trial and sentencing of Galileo was much less terrible than most anti-Catholics make it out to be (too often, I still read of how the Church “executed” Galileo!), he did not actually do anything wrong. The charge was that he violated a cardinal’s edict to teach heliocentrism as a theory-not-a-fact, but the charge was never substantiated. It looks like a purely political move orchestrated by the anti-Barberini Spanish cardinals in the aftermath of some bad politics between Rome and the French.
B
buffalo
Guest
The Swan’s Song of Galileo’s Myth
One can see that Galileo, even though warned by a Pope, a Saint, a Cardinal and various eminent scholars, persisted in assuming the role of reforming exegesis. With this extremely arrogant attitude, he in effect provoked the condemnation of his theological pretensions.
Instead of a serious scholar and precise scientist, Galileo presented himself as a rebel theologian applying the method of the free-examination that Luther had fabricated some 50 years before. Actually, he quite deserved the condemnation he received. 14. A. Favaro, Opere di Galileo, vol. 12, p. 146, apud M. Vigano, “Galileo ieri e oggi,” p. 381.
15. A. Favaro, Opere di Galileo, vol. 2, p. 155, apud E. Vacandard, entry Galilée, Dictionaire de Theologie Catholique, vol. 6, col. 1061.
16. Ibid., col. 1062. A just condemnation recognized by many
The Holy Inquisition, therefore, acted correctly in condemning Galileo. That action was consistent with its mission of guarding the integrity of the Catholic Faith. It was justly defending the Catholic Theology and Philosophy attacked by Galileo Galilei.
In a speech delivered in Parma, Italy, March 15, 1990, even Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger endorsed the opinion of philosopher P. Feyerabend against Galileo. Ratzinger stated: “At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just” (17).
T
Touchstone
Guest
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Sadly, even though the truth about Galileo and the Church is well known, widely available via the Internet and reliable sources, the fashionable ‘retroversions’ and the distortions and outright lies are trotted out, over and over, because in today’s ‘soundbite’ world quantity and shrillness and invective matter more than quality and dignity and actual logical reasoning.
And so, despite the careful, reasoned, and ‘sourced’ comments brought up so capably by other posters, the shrill sneers and the calculated rhetoric and above all the interminable lies will go on, because ‘everybody knows’ how ‘wicked’ the Church was.
Obviously the ''Catholic Church is anti-scientist and tortured Galileo for telling the ‘truth’ crowd has a vested interest in keeping the flames ‘fanned’. Heaven forfend that there might be ‘another side’ to the story. Heaven forfend that the Catholic Church might not be the ‘ogre’, nor Galileo the ‘put upon innocent’. Because if the Catholic Church is not completely foul, then we might have to actually consider its teachings as equally ‘valid’ to nonCatholic teachings instead of dismissing them contemptuously because of “all the AWFUL things the Catholic Church has done like torturing Galileo”.
One wonders why it appears that some nonCatholics can’t simply address why they don’t believe Catholic teachings without trying to ‘demonize’ the Church itself. One wonders what these people are afraid of, that they can’t even consider the Church’s teachings, or even a given event in history, without slamming the Church as an institution and attempting to render it so morally reprehensible that any of its teachings are automatically dismissed out of hand.
On second thought, one doesn’t need to wonder WHY some nonCatholics choose to spread such slander and libel about the Church at all. . .
And so, despite the careful, reasoned, and ‘sourced’ comments brought up so capably by other posters, the shrill sneers and the calculated rhetoric and above all the interminable lies will go on, because ‘everybody knows’ how ‘wicked’ the Church was.
Obviously the ''Catholic Church is anti-scientist and tortured Galileo for telling the ‘truth’ crowd has a vested interest in keeping the flames ‘fanned’. Heaven forfend that there might be ‘another side’ to the story. Heaven forfend that the Catholic Church might not be the ‘ogre’, nor Galileo the ‘put upon innocent’. Because if the Catholic Church is not completely foul, then we might have to actually consider its teachings as equally ‘valid’ to nonCatholic teachings instead of dismissing them contemptuously because of “all the AWFUL things the Catholic Church has done like torturing Galileo”.
One wonders why it appears that some nonCatholics can’t simply address why they don’t believe Catholic teachings without trying to ‘demonize’ the Church itself. One wonders what these people are afraid of, that they can’t even consider the Church’s teachings, or even a given event in history, without slamming the Church as an institution and attempting to render it so morally reprehensible that any of its teachings are automatically dismissed out of hand.
On second thought, one doesn’t need to wonder WHY some nonCatholics choose to spread such slander and libel about the Church at all. . .
S
stenlis
Guest
You are completely wrong on this one. The difference between Galileo’s work and the work of Copernicus is that Galileo provided evidence that was unavailable to Copernicus and those before him. The reason is that Galileo was the first to use telescope for his observation. This evidence - most importantly the phases of Venus was in direct contradiction with the Aristotelian model that the Church held.
The Copernican Heliocentrism started gaining attention around 1600 and after Galileo published his first short treatus Starry Messenger about his telescopic observations the Inquisition started an official investigation of the matter in 1615.
In their unanimous report they concluded that heliocentrism is a heretical philosophy that contradicts the holy scripture (concretely 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5) and later the The Congregation of the Index (the censorship body of the Church) banned, condemned and suspended all notable books on heliocentrism (including the one by Copernicus) and banned the teaching of heliocentrism.
Galileo did not back down. After struggling for support he managed to publish his book “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” in 1632. Under advisement of the church leaders, he was supposed to simply present both of the systems. Instead he presented them as a dialogue between a representative of the Aristotelian system and a representative of the heliocentric system. In the dialogue the Aristotelian system lost the debate on all accounts mainly because of the new observational evidence.
The reaction of the Church was to order Galileo to stand trial in which Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy,” namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its center and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to “abjure, curse, and detest” those opinions - which he did. In spite of this he was held in a house arrest for the rest of his life.
The fact is that the Church could have stayed out of the debate between Aristotelian and Copernican systems and let them battle it out on the grounds of evidence and science. But it didn’t. It declared one of them a heresy and acted accordingly.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Not today------in those days it could.
I DO agree that the Church bent over backwards to accomodate Galileo. The problem was, he wanted to publish Heliocentrism was fact regardless of the “damage” it could do the masses (being told about it without context)
The Church said—“We know you’re right,because our own scientists have basically confirmed it. Give us time to disseminate this information properly—to get it out properly.” He refused, whoch led directly to his House Arrest and Recantation.
The irony was, the REAL reason Galileo got in trouble was the fact that he decided to parody the Pope as the foolish, stupid Aristotelian scholar Simpliccio in the Dialogues.
Not very smart of Galileo.
And Bellarmine happened to be a close friend of Galileo, further in irony.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
I was always surpised what Feyerabend said. I alos happen to agree with it.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
So let’s ask some other questions.
Suppose you have a scientist --somebody well known and respected, like Stephen Hawking–and he wants to publish, as a science text, as a scientist, and as an expert in the fields of science such as physics --a book which states, as scientific FACT, that ‘there is no God.’
Now a reputable scientist or scientific organization would probably try to get Stephen to make a public statement that the ‘there is no God’ statement is Stephen’s personal opinion and that absolutely is not and cannot be scientific fact. (in fact there is no way that science could declare that there is no God. There is no ‘proof’.) Because of course, science is interested in making accurate factual statements which are ‘provable’ through specific and scientific ‘proofs’ and criteria. Philosophizing is not physics.
So, should say the Royal Academy of Physics have the power to ‘block’ Stephen’s book or at least the section where Stephen says, "there is no god’? Or to add a caveat that "This book represents Mr. Hawking’s belief but not the belief of the Royal Academy of Physics?
If so. . .then obviously you admit that there are legitimate authorities who do have a legitimate say in what members of their organization can and cannot say.
If not. . .then you appear to think that ‘free speech’ means that even outright error (and this is indeed an error) must be presented as scientific fact, and that nobody has the right to ‘stop’ somebody making that factual error.
And this would explain why certain ‘facts’ (which actually are proven falsehoods at worst, or simply only ‘possibilities’ at best) are presented as ‘fact’ in textbook after textbook, year after year, century after century. Because even though people in the field knew that what was being published was in fact false, they felt as though they were ‘powerless’ to prevent these falsehoods being taught as truths. IOW, they felt that they had no ‘authority’ to stop falsehood being taught as truth because even though it was demonstrably false, they could not ‘stop’ a person from claiming it as truth.
**And so you still have ‘history’ which paints not just the Catholic Church but which has (in past years) painted all sorts of individuals and groups falsely. . .but nobody ever bothered to note or correct the falsehood, because they didn’t ‘dare’ interfere with somebody’s ‘free speech’ and their ‘right’ to present falsehood as truth. **
**So long as somebody yelled loudly enough, made enough fuss, was unpleasant or contentious, screamed that they were being ‘oppressed’, screamed ‘bias’ or ‘hate speech’ or ‘justice’. . .they could pretty much tell all the lies they pleased and call them ‘truth’. . . and spread those lies to innocent children and bring them up to trust in lies as truth. . .and THAT kind of ‘free speech’ is worth protecting at the expense of truth? **
I’m just asking. Where is the line drawn? Is there no way to determine whether there is any such thing as an absolute truth? (Remember too, if you say ‘no’, you’ve just attempted yourself to claim an ‘absolute truth’ in denying the possibility of determining absolute truth, so in essence you’ve just proved that absolute truth exists).
Why do people attempt to ‘separate’ religion from science as though they exist independent of each other?
Suppose you have a scientist --somebody well known and respected, like Stephen Hawking–and he wants to publish, as a science text, as a scientist, and as an expert in the fields of science such as physics --a book which states, as scientific FACT, that ‘there is no God.’
Now a reputable scientist or scientific organization would probably try to get Stephen to make a public statement that the ‘there is no God’ statement is Stephen’s personal opinion and that absolutely is not and cannot be scientific fact. (in fact there is no way that science could declare that there is no God. There is no ‘proof’.) Because of course, science is interested in making accurate factual statements which are ‘provable’ through specific and scientific ‘proofs’ and criteria. Philosophizing is not physics.
So, should say the Royal Academy of Physics have the power to ‘block’ Stephen’s book or at least the section where Stephen says, "there is no god’? Or to add a caveat that "This book represents Mr. Hawking’s belief but not the belief of the Royal Academy of Physics?
If so. . .then obviously you admit that there are legitimate authorities who do have a legitimate say in what members of their organization can and cannot say.
If not. . .then you appear to think that ‘free speech’ means that even outright error (and this is indeed an error) must be presented as scientific fact, and that nobody has the right to ‘stop’ somebody making that factual error.
And this would explain why certain ‘facts’ (which actually are proven falsehoods at worst, or simply only ‘possibilities’ at best) are presented as ‘fact’ in textbook after textbook, year after year, century after century. Because even though people in the field knew that what was being published was in fact false, they felt as though they were ‘powerless’ to prevent these falsehoods being taught as truths. IOW, they felt that they had no ‘authority’ to stop falsehood being taught as truth because even though it was demonstrably false, they could not ‘stop’ a person from claiming it as truth.
**And so you still have ‘history’ which paints not just the Catholic Church but which has (in past years) painted all sorts of individuals and groups falsely. . .but nobody ever bothered to note or correct the falsehood, because they didn’t ‘dare’ interfere with somebody’s ‘free speech’ and their ‘right’ to present falsehood as truth. **
**So long as somebody yelled loudly enough, made enough fuss, was unpleasant or contentious, screamed that they were being ‘oppressed’, screamed ‘bias’ or ‘hate speech’ or ‘justice’. . .they could pretty much tell all the lies they pleased and call them ‘truth’. . . and spread those lies to innocent children and bring them up to trust in lies as truth. . .and THAT kind of ‘free speech’ is worth protecting at the expense of truth? **
I’m just asking. Where is the line drawn? Is there no way to determine whether there is any such thing as an absolute truth? (Remember too, if you say ‘no’, you’ve just attempted yourself to claim an ‘absolute truth’ in denying the possibility of determining absolute truth, so in essence you’ve just proved that absolute truth exists).
Why do people attempt to ‘separate’ religion from science as though they exist independent of each other?
R
reggieM
Guest
I would guess that it was emphasizing the word, and also indicating that the word has several meanings.
Design = purpose
Design = organize, structure
Design = determined plan
Design = pattern
The Pope would not want the term to mean “determined” in a way that destroys free-will and the requirements of Justice.
So, he says ‘design’ meaning that we need to be careful about what the word means.
That’s my guess, anyway.
E
edwest2
Guest
Fear and anger are the two easiest emotions to evoke in people. In the secular world, that is called politics. Sound bites. Angry rhetoric. Loud proclamations.
In war, the enemy is usually demonized. This is a war my fellow Catholics. It is a war for trust and the Truth.
On one side, the secular world has enshrined the mind of man, and worship the god Change. We are being taught that change is inevitable and should be expected and accepted.
Please remember. Opinions are not facts. The truth is not - true for you but not true for me. Or, there is truth for you but a different truth for me. Whenever you read anything, take note of what you’re reading and decide: is this the truth or not? Opinions will get us nowhere.
God bless,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
I think leela was asking as to who put it in quotes. I copied it that way and I am not sure if the translators put it there because the Pope emphasized it some way. It is a good question.
W
Wowbagger
Guest
- A. Favaro, Opere di Galileo, vol. 12, p. 146, apud M. Vigano, “Galileo ieri e oggi,” p. 381.
- A. Favaro, Opere di Galileo, vol. 2, p. 155, apud E. Vacandard, entry Galilée, Dictionaire de Theologie Catholique, vol. 6, col. 1061.
- Ibid., col. 1062.
Yes, caution was demanded (rightly) by Cardinal Bellarmine. Yes, the dangers that could arise from bad exegesis in light of heliocentrism were real and grave. Yes, Galileo was enjoined to teach heliocentrism as a theory, not a fact, until such time as the conflicts in Aristotleanism/Thomism could be worked out (which was happening quickly, because the science was clear even in Rome). Guimarães’s article makes a wonderful case for why all these things are important and delicate issues, separate from science, and carefully shows the instructions Galileo received to tread lightly in his public teaching.
But there’s no evidence, in Guimarães’s article anyway, that Galileo violated any of those instructions! Guimarães cites one quotation about “psuedo-philosophy” that’s apparently been ripped out of its original context (I can’t find the original context, either; the citation is woefully unclear), and makes a broad, all-encompassing gesture in the direction of one enormous letter, without any particular claim for me to check. (That letter is here, by the way.) I glanced over the letter, but found nothing proving or even strongly indicating a violation of the edict by Galileo.
This is bad scholarship. More importantly, it is bad prosecution. The Inquisition, like Guimarães, had some great charges and some great arguments, but, as far as I can find, no evidence that their charges or arguments had any connection to what Galileo was actually doing! He should not have been found guilty. The Catholic Church invented the modern judicial process, after all; it’s embarrassing that we failed to follow it in the most prominent case that ever came before our courts.
It was a messy affair, and the Enlightenment caricature of the trial is grossly unfair to all concerned, but the men of the Church did not ultimately do the right thing here. I’m glad for the apology.
G
grannymh
Guest
Is there an English version of your “here”? Or did I do the granny thing of clicking the wrong key?
What I found in the Swan’s Song is the reason I was having trouble following the language in some of the documents. To me, some of documents sounded like a bunch of hot heads trying to yell the loudest. This is the out-of-context quote which solved my dilemma. “That is, both sides based their conclusions on a fundamental imprecision of terms as we understand them today.”
In addition, when reading some of the supporting documents like a letter, I got the impression that there were a lot of “kitchen politics” going on. In any case, right or wrong, a lot of mistakes were made. I weep for Galileo.
Blessings,
granny
The search for truth is worthy of the misadventures of the journey.
- Status