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

[ab75]

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?

The Church has transcendent knowledge of faith and morals, that is in official compacity it will not allow doctrine to error. The people in the Church at all levels are fallible people, and have committed error countless times through the centuries.

While people like to believe that the Church was this terrible entity that sought out power by force, that isn’t actually the case. I tend to believe Christianity is at it’s best when it is free from secular power/authority and provides the spiritual nutrition people need. For better or worse, the Roman empire embraced Christianity during the 4th century and as a result, the Church was intertwined with the public in a radical new way (for good and bad reasons). When the Roman empire fell, it was the people who essentially looked to the Chruch to fill that void of authority. The people needed someone to keep the order, and since they believed in the Church, the bishops, etc. began to have secular power.

With the power, innevitable abuse followed to different degrees at different times throughtout the centuries. Certainly the Church was at times run like any secular government when it came to governing, and it would be wrong to ignore these issues. Yes, the world was changing, and there were two goals going on in the 16th/17th centuries. First, with the spread of the reformation, the Church was trying to hold onto it’s secular authority (and most of the people wanted this). Second, the people who were almost entirely Christian, were looking to the Church for spiritual and religous clarity, and expected to get this. As a result, we have the history we do.

It’s clear that our Countries founders were uniquely aware of these issues that had formed the Europe they were fleeing from. As a result, the rightly insisted on seperation of Church and State, mostly to keep the Church free of corruption, not to keep religion out of government. They saw that when religous leaders have all secular power, it can corrupt they pureness of the gospel, and created something profound (although it is now changing). I would suggest that we’ve seen secular governments without religous involvement in the last century (communism on the left, and fascism/nazism on the right) that both fared far worse than the Church has historically.

The point is, the leaders of the Church were acting in what they preceived the best spiritual and secular interests of the people at that time. Did they make a mistake in the way they handled things, sure. Where things handled better than people did thousands of years earlier, yes. Were they handled as well as they should be today, no.

Free will is an important thing and shouldn’t be taken away in my opinion (as long as others aren’t harmed, which can be subjective). The thing about freedom is, I think we have it pretty wrong in the United States. We see freedom as the ability to do whatever we want and think whatever we think for ourself. True freedome is the freedom from anxieties, hate and fear that allows us to use our gifts for the benefit of others (which benefits us in the process). If you look at those in athletics or music with the most freedom (Michael Jordan could do it all, Peyton Manning can change plays at the line, The Beatles could play anything in harmony), that appearant freedom to perform is only born out of intense discipline to practice and remove fear, anxieties and doubt. This is what a relationship with Christ in the Church offers, now and always. However, now, just like always there are people in the Church, sometimes at high levels who have not been able to live it perfectly.

 

[JDaniel]

I say the Church authorities behaviour was unreasonable and paranoid. Did Galileo actually say anything that was heretical to the Catholic faith?

MoM,

That’s the problem; he was put on a kind of “house arrest” while the church the took up the issue of how to disseminate his hypothesis to the laity. Prior to that period of time, Church officials there had asked him to be silent and he agreed that he would. He did not. That’s all.

Here is the rest of the story:

Under the sentence of imprisonment Galileo remained till his death in 1642. It is, however, untrue to speak of him as in any proper sense a “prisoner”. As his Protestant biographer, von Gebler, tells us, “One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one that Galileo spent altogether twenty-two days in the buildings of the Holy Office (i.e. the Inquisition), and even then not in a prison cell with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition.” For the rest, he was allowed to use as his places of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and usually luxurious. It is wholly untrue that he was — as is constantly stated — either tortured or blinded by his persecutors — though in 1637, five years before his death, he became totally blind — or that he was refused burial in consecrated ground. On the contrary, although the pope (Urban VIII) did not allow a monument to be erected over his tomb, he sent his special blessing to the dying man, who was interred not only in consecrated ground, but within the church of Santa Croce at Florence.

newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

God bless,
jd

 

[edwest2]

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.

That statements is false. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences today. The Church is not wrong about moral teaching today.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Leela]

That statements is false. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences today. The Church is not wrong about moral teaching today.

I understand that that is your opinion, but it seems to me that if the Church could act immorally as it did in the case of Galileo by forcing him to lie and imprisoning him for publicizing his scientific research, then it may still promote immoral acts today. I understand that the Church thought it was acting morally at the time, but we of course now all agree that it was not. We both know that it is and always was wrong for any religious institution to try to dictate what a scientist can or cannot say. The Church just didn’t know then what we both know now. But this fact makes me wonder what the Church still doesn’t know about morality even now.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

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

That is totally true about the “circular orbits” theory. It was Kepler who proved otherwise.

 

[Leela]

No, he taught theory as fact.

Should a religious organization be able to tell someone what can and cannot be said? Galileo taught something that he believed to be true but had not been established beyond all doubt to the satisfaction of the Church. Is that something that you think a person ought to be arrested for? Should such a person be forced to lie about what he believes? When else might it become important for the Church to force someone to lie about what he believes? Or do you think that the Church ought never do that?

The answers I keep getting are that it was right then though it would be wrong now. I can’t see how that makes any sense unless Catholics are moral relativists.

 

[Betterave]

“Moral relativism” is a term that people often throw around without knowing what it means. If you want this to be a discussion about moral relativism, you should begin by defining the term.

A bunch of stuff…

Should a religious organization be able to tell someone what can and cannot be said?

• That obviously depends on the circumstances.

Galileo taught something that he believed to be true but had not been established beyond all doubt to the satisfaction of the Church. Is that something that you think a person ought to be arrested for?

• Obviously not on the basis of the prejudicial way in which you have described it!

Should such a person be forced to lie about what he believes?

• Of course not.

When else might it become important for the Church to force someone to lie about what he believes?

• Obviously this is never important.

Or do you think that the Church ought never do that?

• 

The answers I keep getting are that it was right then though it would be wrong now. I can’t see how that makes any sense unless Catholics are moral relativists.

The alternative here, which you’re clearly ignoring, is that you need to describe a situation adequately if you wish to be able to make a sound moral assessment of it. You are not doing so.

 

[JDaniel]

I understand that that is your opinion, but it seems to me that if the Church could act immorally as it did in the case of Galileo by forcing him to lie and imprisoning him for publicizing his scientific research, then it may still promote immoral acts today. I understand that the Church thought it was acting morally at the time, but we of course now all agree that it was not. We both know that it is and always was wrong for any religious institution to try to dictate what a scientist can or cannot say. The Church just didn’t know then what we both know now. But this fact makes me wonder what the Church still doesn’t know about morality even now.

As I have shown, your assertions are lies. Imprisonment? For 21 days? In luxury? That wasn’t a “real” imprisonment? In those days? Please!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

“Moral relativism” is a term that people often throw around without knowing what it means. If you want this to be a discussion about moral relativism, you should begin by defining the term.

Should a religious organization be able to tell someone what can and cannot be said?

• That obviously depends on the circumstances.

Galileo taught something that he believed to be true but had not been established beyond all doubt to the satisfaction of the Church. Is that something that you think a person ought to be arrested for?

• Obviously not on the basis of the prejudicial way in which you have described it!

Should such a person be forced to lie about what he believes?

• Of course not.

When else might it become important for the Church to force someone to lie about what he believes?

• Obviously this is never important.

Or do you think that the Church ought never do that?

• 

The alternative here, which you’re clearly ignoring, is that you need to describe a situation adequately if you wish to be able to make a sound moral assessment of it. You are not doing so.

Betterave:

And, she never does!

God bless,
jd

 

[edwest2]

I understand that that is your opinion, but it seems to me that if the Church could act immorally as it did in the case of Galileo by forcing him to lie and imprisoning him for publicizing his scientific research, then it may still promote immoral acts today. I understand that the Church thought it was acting morally at the time, but we of course now all agree that it was not. We both know that it is and always was wrong for any religious institution to try to dictate what a scientist can or cannot say. The Church just didn’t know then what we both know now. But this fact makes me wonder what the Church still doesn’t know about morality even now.

Have you read about the Galileo case from the Library of this web site? Speaking about the present, is the Church telling any scientist what to say or not say?

“all agree”? I don’t agree. Galileo, somewhat understandably, began running around like a nut. I proved it! I proved it! He hadn’t proved it. Since Galileo was now officially out of control, the Church tried to correct him, and when that didn’t work: house arrest.

Morality is not this flexible thing some think it is. Right and wrong exists.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

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.

You really do not know what IDvolution is about.

 

[wanstronian]

My post 46 was not directed to ID. It picked up on the word “special”. A person does not have to be “religious” to think “special.” That is my personal opinion.

Okay. I was using the Wikipedia definition of ‘Special Creation’ which refers to the creation of the universe and everything in it, by God.

 

[wanstronian]

Let’s revisit your claim:

You admit that your argument has no scientific proof, so therefore is can not be a serious contender as an explanation for anything.

In other words, the only way to explain something (in your view) is scientifically. You now contradict that and make a non-scientific explanation which you claim is a proof.

So, in dismissing ID as “non-scientific” and therefore non-explanatory, you dismiss your own opinions about ID as non-explanatory.

“Darwin of the Gaps”. For example, when evidence shows that similar body plans do not share a recent common ancestor, there’s a gap. This gap is then filled with an unverifiable, ad-hoc explanation called “convergent evolution”.

So, we can see that that particular theory is proven false by your own reasoning.

You think that this semantic contortionism makes a difference to the validity of my post? Think again.

 

[wanstronian]

Anybody heard of the very well-known long-time atheist philosopher Antony Flew (recently deceased, I believe)? Anybody know why he gave up on atheism? (You might want to look this one up, wanstronian.)

Why is it that you theist gush so triumphantly about one atheist who turned semi-religious for bad reasons, as if that somehow makes theism right! It’s one man, guys, get some perspective!

Antony Flew rejecting atheism doesn’t mean atheism is wrong.

 

[wanstronian]

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.

You’re kidding? You don’t think that Evolution, Special Relativity etc. prove Creation wrong?

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

Did you actually read any background on the ‘miracle’ of the deacon’s back? He recovered in a few days from an operation from which people usually recover… within a few days. The beatification of Newman is nothing more than a desperate attempt to keep Catholicism current. A bit like the pope’s ill-conceived conflation of atheism and Nazism is nothing more than a desperate last-ditch gambit of a man whose archaic organization is rapidly and thankfully losing the ability to influence the increasingly secular way we live our lives.

 

[wanstronian]

You really do not know what IDvolution is about.

That’s because it doesn’t exist other than in your imagination. Or at least, Google doesn’t seem to know about it!

So I’m forced to go by the description in your sig line, which amounts to a bundle of fluff.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Should a religious organization be able to tell someone what can and cannot be said? Galileo taught something that he believed to be true but had not been established beyond all doubt to the satisfaction of the Church. Is that something that you think a person ought to be arrested for? Should such a person be forced to lie about what he believes? When else might it become important for the Church to force someone to lie about what he believes? Or do you think that the Church ought never do that?

The answers I keep getting are that it was right then though it would be wrong now. I can’t see how that makes any sense unless Catholics are moral relativists.

Well, Leela, if you go into a crowded theater and shout “Fire” (hey, free speech, ya know?) let me know how your court case goes when you get tried for inciting a riot or prosecuted from the deaths that could result from people panicking.

IOW, your local municipality of East Podunk can have the ‘right’ to tell you what you can and cannot say.

You can be ejected from a bank, a grocery store, or other public (and private) venues for dropping the F bomb. People have a right to say what can and cannot be said by others in things like their own homes, and in ‘public’ places as well. (Let me know how your court case goes should you decide to go into your local bank and start telling the people to F off and call their children little "S’ ers etc.)

So you don’t mind your local government telling you that you can’t swear in your local bank, or use the word “God” in your local public school, right Leela? It’s only religious organizations which shouldn’t have the ‘right’ to determine ‘what can be said.’

Who’s the moral relativist here again?

 

[edwest2]

Why is it that you theist gush so triumphantly about one atheist who turned semi-religious for bad reasons, as if that somehow makes theism right! It’s one man, guys, get some perspective!

Antony Flew rejecting atheism doesn’t mean atheism is wrong.

One man can change the world. And since thinking without faith has been elevated above faith, it raises the question of, what if Mr. Flew got it right without relying on religious arguments?

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

You’re kidding? You don’t think that Evolution, Special Relativity etc. prove Creation wrong?

Did you actually read any background on the ‘miracle’ of the deacon’s back? He recovered in a few days from an operation from which people usually recover… within a few days. The beatification of Newman is nothing more than a desperate attempt to keep Catholicism current. A bit like the pope’s ill-conceived conflation of atheism and Nazism is nothing more than a desperate last-ditch gambit of a man whose archaic organization is rapidly and thankfully losing the ability to influence the increasingly secular way we live our lives.

I’m constantly reminded here that science cannot prove anything. Or, when I use the word proof, I’m referred to mathematics or a certain percentage of alcohol.

Your confident statements about the Church do not include the many historical attempts to reduce or eliminate its influence, including the French Revolution. Speaking generally, Leftists and Anarchists believe they have the upper hand today. The truth will triumph. It always has.

God bless,
Ed

 

[JDaniel]

I understand that that is your opinion, but it seems to me that if the Church could act immorally as it did in the case of Galileo by forcing him to lie and imprisoning him for publicizing his scientific research, then it may still promote immoral acts today. I understand that the Church thought it was acting morally at the time, but we of course now all agree that it was not. We both know that it is and always was wrong for any religious institution to try to dictate what a scientist can or cannot say. The Church just didn’t know then what we both know now. But this fact makes me wonder what the Church still doesn’t know about morality even now.

Leela:

What imprisonment are you talking about? What force was used to get him “to lie?”

Really! No wonder you think as you do!

God bless,
jd