Pope's astronomer dismisses ID and says Church was "spectacularly wrong" in its treatment of Galileo

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leela
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Intelligent Design has absolutely no scientific basis whatever. It’s merely the repositioning of creationism as a result of Special Creation having been disproved by science.
Science has no business saying a single word about special creation. Unless you can show a single scientific paper that analyzes Genesis or God, then all we have here is pure speculation.

Secularists are keen on ignoring miracles today. A man was elevated to sainthood in England. This requires at least two miracles that can be attributed to his intercession. These miracles, along with the life of the prospective saint, are examined carefully.

God bless,
Ed
 
I understand that today Catholics see these as different sorts of claims and find it important to make the distinction you want to make. I think that is progress, but Bellarmine explicitly equated these sorts of claims in this quote:

“To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.”

One is as wrong as the other and in the same way. Both defy the teaching of the Church.
I respect your right to disagree. However, I respectfully ask you to consider what I was saying in the entire post 55. “different sorts of claims” is not applicable to how the visible Catholic Church operates. Nor is there one kind or mode of teaching within the visible Catholic Church.

Please do not confuse Catholicism with other forms of Christianity.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1; 1
 
LOL! You might want to update your research, Leela! Try this link:

existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html

Apparently God (with some help from “science”) did provide the evidence Flew needed (although, N.B., that’s obviously a very simplistic way of looking at it).
Can you show me what in that link contradicts what I wrote?

“He’s the author of the 2001 article in response to a bunch of internet rumors “Sorry to Disappoint, but I’m Still an Atheist!” As far as I know, he died disbelieving in the Christian God and any afterlife.”

I definitely missed the part where Flew accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior or supports a theistic conception of God.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in Denmark anyway?
 
Can you show me what in that link contradicts what I wrote?

“He’s the author of the 2001 article in response to a bunch of internet rumors “Sorry to Disappoint, but I’m Still an Atheist!” As far as I know, he died disbelieving in the Christian God and any afterlife.”

I definitely missed the part where Flew accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior or supports a theistic conception of God.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in Denmark anyway?
Nice try, Leela, but I didn’t quote that post, nor did I claim that “Flew accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior or supports a theistic conception of God.”

Also please note my nota bene (N.B.).
 
The key point is that Bellarmine is referring to two, yes two, different, yes different realms of authority and two different levels or categories of issues. Any conclusion in science does not automatically change a Catholic theological truth. Nor does any progress in science change the Catholic authority regarding moral teaching.
I accept the distinction between moral and scientific teaching. Though we agree that the church was scientifically wrong on heliocentrism, the church was also morally wrong in its treatment of Galileo. We all know today that it is immoral for the church to force a scientist to recant his scientific views. We have a right to freedom of speech that the church stepped on in the case of Galilieo. It would be immoral for the church to imprison someone for heresy today. If we are not moral relativists, then it was wrong then as well.

It is obvious that the church was wrong about science then and claims no scientific authprity today. But if the church could be wrong about morals then, it can be wrong about morals now.
 
Nice try, Leela, but I didn’t quote that post, nor did I claim that “Flew accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior or supports a theistic conception of God.”

Also please note my nota bene (N.B.).
You said with your usual “LOL!” …

"You might want to update your research, Leela! Try this link:

existence-of-god.com"

What exactly did I say that is worthy of being LOL-ed at and needs to be updated?
 
I accept the distinction between moral and scientific teaching. Though we agree that the church was scientifically wrong on heliocentrism, the church was also morally wrong in its treatment of Galileo. We all know today that it is immoral for the church to force a scientist to recant his scientific views. We have a right to freedom of speech that the church stepped on in the case of Galilieo. It would be immoral for the church to imprison someone for heresy today. If we are not moral relativists, then it was wrong then as well.

It is obvious that the church was wrong about science then and claims no scientific authprity today. But if the church could be wrong about morals then, it can be wrong about morals now.
I would have thought it is a moral act to imprison someone for heresy, some would say imperative. For if one believes in a soul, and God, and all the rest of Catholicism, and this is tainted by heresy, then that heresy puts people in danger of losing immortal life. So, the process of seperating the heretic from the general population is crucial to the preservation of many people’s immortal souls. What the Church did at that time was justified, at least in so far as imprisoning a heretic.

Also about this concept of freedom of speech, was that an idea that was popular at the time of Galileo? Or was it a radical thing? Or even simply unknown?
Personally, i think that freedom of speech is a privelege granted by those with guns and money, not something that is implicit to those who live in this mortal coil.
 
I accept the distinction between moral and scientific teaching. Though we agree that the church was scientifically wrong on heliocentrism, the church was also morally wrong in its treatment of Galileo. We all know today that it is immoral for the church to force a scientist to recant his scientific views. We have a right to freedom of speech that the church stepped on in the case of Galilieo. It would be immoral for the church to imprison someone for heresy today. If we are not moral relativists, then it was wrong then as well.

It is obvious that the church was wrong about science then and claims no scientific authprity today. But if the church could be wrong about morals then, it can be wrong about morals now.
What you are referring to is the application of moral teaching.

My apology, but I have to leave this thread because of other obligations.
 
Galileos arrest was for heresy; not for what he taught. Copernican Heliocentric ideas had been circulating before the Birth of Galileo; and was in fact approved of by Pope Clement VII.

Galileo was nothing more than an arrogant man who taught theory as fact; and an unscientific oaf. It is fortunate the Church exersised charity and forgiveness on this poor man; and only awarded him house arrest.
And YOUR source for making the above statement is???

In fact Galileo is regarded in the scientific world as one of its brightest lights. You obviously have little understanding of science, and absolutely no knowledge of what happened to this man. He taught FACT as fact, and even after being detained on house arrest, he stated, “It still moves”.

He was 100% correct.
 
You said with your usual “LOL!” …

"You might want to update your research, Leela! Try this link:

existence-of-god.com"

What exactly did I say that is worthy of being LOL-ed at and needs to be updated?
The LOL is justified for one of two reasons: Either you had the facts wrong and were continuing on your merry little way based on 2001 data. Or you knew the post-2001 facts but dishonestly chose to present only a reference to the 2001 facts, which were obviously not relevant as a response to my post (and, on the basis of presuming that you *are *honest, suggested that you were in fact ignorant of the post-2001 facts). Either way…

Also my “N.B.” justifies it, which you still seem to be ignoring.
 
And YOUR source for making the above statement is???

In fact Galileo is regarded in the scientific world as one of its brightest lights. You obviously have little understanding of science, and absolutely no knowledge of what happened to this man. He taught FACT as fact, and even after being detained on house arrest, he stated, “It still moves”.

He was 100% correct.
Didn’t this thread mention earlier that Galileo’s theory was incorrect in certain parts? Such as he thought everything revolved around the sun in perfect circles?
 
I would have thought it is a moral act to imprison someone for heresy, some would say imperative. For if one believes in a soul, and God, and all the rest of Catholicism, and this is tainted by heresy, then that heresy puts people in danger of losing immortal life. So, the process of seperating the heretic from the general population is crucial to the preservation of many people’s mortal souls. What the Church did at that time was justified, at least in so far as imprisoning a heretic.

Also about this concept of freedom of speech, was that an idea that was popular at the time of Galileo? Or was it a radical thing? Or even simply unknown?
Personally, i think that freedom of speech is a privelege granted by those with guns and money, not something that is implicit to those who live in this mortal coil.
My apology, but I have to leave this interesting discussion. Moral teachings basically follow the Ten Commandments. When speaking about Catholic moral teachings, one needs to distinguish the actual teaching from the actions of Church members. People rightly or wrongly can follow or ignore any kind of teaching. Catholicism does not hold to the philosophy of relativism.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16&17
 
My apology, but I have to leave this interesting discussion. Moral teachings basically follow the Ten Commandments. When speaking about Catholic moral teachings, one needs to distinguish the actual teaching from the actions of Church members. People rightly or wrongly can follow or ignore any kind of teaching. Catholicism does not hold to the philosophy of relativism.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16&17
Fair enough.
 
I would have thought it is a moral act to imprison someone for heresy, some would say imperative.
I disbelieve in God, Jesus, the virginity of Mary, the authority of the church. I am as much of a heretic as could be. Should I imprisoned?
For if one believes in a soul, and God, and all the rest of Catholicism, and this is tainted by heresy, then that heresy puts people in danger of losing immortal life. So, the process of seperating the heretic from the general population is crucial to the preservation of many people’s immortal souls. What the Church did at that time was justified, at least in so far as imprisoning a heretic.
Would it be justified now? If not why not? Has morality changed since then?
Also about this concept of freedom of speech, was that an idea that was popular at the time of Galileo? Or was it a radical thing? Or even simply unknown?
Saying that the idea was unknown at the time is no defense for an institution which claims to have transcendent knowledge about morality. The church claims that its teachings are not contingent products of historical development but eternal truths that it has special access to.

If the church was wrong about morals then, who is to say that it can’t be wrong about morals now?
 
[SNIP] Though we agree that the church was scientifically wrong on heliocentrism,
Oh, Leela, you are so enamored with the idea of bringing the Church to its proverbial knees that you’re willing to skew all reality. The Church accepted the science of the time; it didn’t outright create it. There are still people that hold the geocentric conception. And, really, you don’t know that the Earth is not the center of the universe and neither do I.
the church was also morally wrong in its treatment of Galileo. We all know today that it is immoral for the church to force a scientist to recant his scientific views. We have a right to freedom of speech that the church stepped on in the case of Galilieo. It would be immoral for the church to imprison someone for heresy today.
The Church and the State had a very different affinity, in the middle ages, as well as the times before it. Politicians were almost invariably Catholic, at least in tradition, and didn’t want to be in contrast to the Church’s positions. So, secular authorities took much upon themselves to sit as authorities for the Church. But, if you can figure out a way to stab the Church, you will. 😉
God bless you Leela,
jd
 
I would have thought it is a moral act to imprison someone for heresy, some would say imperative. For if one believes in a soul, and God, and all the rest of Catholicism, and this is tainted by heresy, then that heresy puts people in danger of losing immortal life. So, the process of seperating the heretic from the general population is crucial to the preservation of many people’s immortal souls. What the Church did at that time was justified, at least in so far as imprisoning a heretic.

Also about this concept of freedom of speech, was that an idea that was popular at the time of Galileo? Or was it a radical thing? Or even simply unknown?
Personally, i think that freedom of speech is a privelege granted by those with guns and money, not something that is implicit to those who live in this mortal coil.
Welcome, Gallowglasser:

All good points.

God bless,
jd
 
guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/17/pope-astronomer-baptise-aliens?CMP%20=twt_gu

"Consolmagno curates the pope’s meteorite collection and is a trained astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican’s observatory. He dismissed the ideas of intelligent design – a pseudoscientific version of creationism. “The word has been hijacked by a narrow group of creationist fundamentalists in America to mean something it didn’t originally mean at all. It’s another form of the God of the gaps. It’s bad theology in that it turns God once again into the pagan god of thunder and lightning.”



The pope’s astronomer said the Vatican was keen on science and admitted that the church had got it “spectacularly wrong” over its treatment of the 17th century astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo confirmed that the Earth went around the sun – and not the other way around – and was charged with heresy in 1633. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest in Tuscany. Only in 1992 did Pope John Paul admit that the church’s treatment of Galileo had been a mistake."
I totally agree with the Popes astronomer. Does that surprise you Leela?
 
Welcome, Gallowglasser:

All good points.

God bless,
jd
I say the Church authorities behaviour was unreasonable and paranoid. Did Galileo actually say anything that was heretical to the Catholic faith?
 
I disbelieve in God, Jesus, the virginity of Mary, the authority of the church. I am as much of a heretic as could be. Should I imprisoned?
That, dear Leela, would be a start! 😃

There’s a huge difference in the way we live and how we are organized today, as opposed to the middle ages. The societies then were essentially Catholic societies. In the same way that our Eucharist must be protected inside our Churches, our presbytery must be protected outside it - especially since the vast majority of them were Catholic.

Galileo was asked to stop preaching his gospel, at least for a while. He did not. His big-headedness prevented him from keeping his beliefs to himself. If you will rightly remember, there were no computers back then, no internet, no email, no US Postal Service, no telephones, no telegraph. Communication took time. Galileo was an impatient man. The Church had to slow him down. But, in your view, “damn the Church!” - which you do every chance you get. What did the Church ever do to you? :confused:

{SNIPPED]

God bless,
jd
 
In fact Galileo is regarded in the scientific world as one of its brightest lights. You obviously have little understanding of science, and absolutely no knowledge of what happened to this man. He taught FACT as fact, and even after being detained on house arrest, he stated, “It still moves”.

He was 100% correct.
No, he taught theory as fact. The Church had no problem with him teaching heliocentrism as theory and while we know it is a fact now, the point is that it was not provable at that time. Galileo got in trouble not just for intransigence on that point but also for insisting that the interpretation of certain passages in scripture was properly the province of scientists, not the Church. Not surprisingly that didn’t sit well with the pope.

Nor was he 100% correct. He believed the planets moved in circular orbits, a “fact” which turned out to be incorrect. The Church insisted on proof, which at the time neither Galileo nor anyone else could provide.

Ender
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top