Scientists protest against Pope

[gilliam]

Sixty one Italian scientists have signed a letter protesting against a planned visit this week by Pope Benedict XVI to Rome’s Sapienza University because of his stated views on Galileo.

In a letter to Renato Guarini, the university rector, the scientists said the visit was “incongruous”. The signatories include distinguished physicists such as Andrea Frova, author of a study of Galileo’s persecution by the Church, and Carlo Maiani, the recently appointed head of the Italian National Council for Research or CNR.

The letter said scientists felt “offended and humiliated” by a statement made in 1990 by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the modern descendant of the Inquisition - suggesting that the trial of Galileo for heresy because of his support for the Copernican system was justified in the context of the time.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3185593.ece

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Mathematically speaking, the geocentric system explained the motions of the planets better than the flawed Copernican system of Galileo’s day. People believed geocentrism for so long not because they were ignorant and backward, but because the tricky math behind it seemed to honestly better match easily observable astronomical realities.

Though Church authorities overstepped their bounds in crossing over to the realm of science, they were not condemning Galileo with their heads stubbornly shoved in the sand; the genuine science and mathematics of the day did seem to indicate that the Copernican system’s math was way more off the mark than the traditional geocentric one.

It wasn’t until heliocentric mathematics was fixed by the discovery that the planets’ orbit is elliptical (it’s one of the laws of planetary motion; I forget which one) that the theory became empirically plausible.

As for the protest in the article, it angers me greatly. The hypocrisy of the statements made by those scientists is inexcusable; they are the true fanatics.

Case in point:

The scientists said they hoped the visit by the Pope on Thursday would be cancelled out of respect for the “secular nature of science” and the fact that the university was open to “students of every belief and ideology”.

The “secular nature of science”? Science is empirical; “secular” denotes cultural and religious connotations. To say that science has a “secular nature” implies in some bizarre manner that it is in conflict with religion by nature.

And since the suggestion that science and religion are in conflict is not empirically falsifiable, it is therefore not a scientific hypothesis, but a religious, unverifiable one.

Which means those so-called “scientists” are the real religious fanatics; only they’re too cowardly or too stupid to admit it.

Also, the second half of the quote angered me as well: the one about the university being open to “students of every belief and ideology.”

So… if they’re so accepting of many diverse viewpoints, why won’t they let the pope have his say?

It’s inexcusably hypocritical to claim that they welcome people “of every belief and ideology” when they are not welcoming the pope. I guess everyone except those who believe the Catholic faith are welcome.

 

[john1863]

was justified in the context of the time.

Benedict’s predecessor Pope John Paul II acknowledged that the Roman Catholic Church had erred in condemning Galileo in 1633 for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

No doubt that it was justified in that time. The Pope was right in that.
My question would be, How far would the Holy Father extend this?

John

 

[didymus]

See John Allen’s column about this story.

Their charge? That Benedict XVI is an enemy of science and reason.
Specifically, the letter points to a speech given on March 15, 1990, by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in Parma, Italy, in which he addressed the notorious Galileo case. On that occasion, Ratzinger quoted Austrian philosopher Paul Feyerabend that “the church’s verdict against Gaileo was rational and just.”

In other words, 18 years ago he quoted someone else as saying the Galileo verdict was “right and just”. He then used the quote (and more from the same philosopher as a springboard for the rest of his speech.

 

[mschrank]

See John Allen’s column about this story.

In other words, 18 years ago he quoted someone else as saying the Galileo verdict was “right and just”. He then used the quote (and more from the same philosopher as a springboard for the rest of his speech.

The last time he quoted someone, another set of fanatics got whipped up and killed some people…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Mathematically speaking, the geocentric system explained the motions of the planets better than the flawed Copernican system of Galileo’s day.

That’s true.

Alphonso X of Portugal had convened the best mathematicians and astronomers hundreds of years earlier to construct astronomical tables. The Alphonsine Tables were based on the geocentric theory, and they worked. (Christopher Columbus had a set of Alphonsine Tables.) Astronomers of Galileo’s day were unable to construct tables that worked using the heliocentric theory.

The heliocentric theory had actually been discussed in Aristotle’s day (almost 2,000 years before Galileo). Aristotle had asked a key question – “If the earth circles the sun, why don’t we see parallax among the stars?”

Galileo was unable to answer that question.

The inability to produce accurate astronomical tables with the heliocentric system, or to explain the problem of parallax justified a sceptical view of the heliocentric theory in those days.

But in the end, it was casting the Pope as “Simplicio” in his dialog on the two competing theories that caused Galilieo’s problems. Imagine someone doing that to Henry VIII!

 

[steveandersen]

…
It wasn’t until heliocentric mathematics was fixed by the discovery that the planets’ orbit is elliptical (it’s one of the laws of planetary motion; I forget which one) that the theory became empirically plausible…

those would be Kepler’s laws

 

[WanderAimlessly]

The last time he quoted someone, another set of fanatics got whipped up and killed some people…

OK. Are you equating those Scientists to Muslim extreemists?

Of course, there are some scientists (especially on so called “global warming” ) that that would be justified.

 

[vern_humphrey]

OK. Are you equating those Scientists to Muslim extreemists?

Of course, there are some scientists (especially on so called “global warming” ) that that would be justified.

I believe you answered your own question.

Funny how people who pride themselves on rational, logical behavior can act so much like people who are famous for their irrational, illogical behavior, isn’t it?

 

[francesco920]

This whole affair has brought out the ugly anti-Catholic bias in the media.

Take a look at this disgusting piece from the BBC:

Scholars protest at papal visit

**Lecturers and students at a prestigious university in Rome want a planned visit by the Pope to be cancelled as they object to his position on Galileo.

** Pope Benedict XVI is to make a speech on Thursday at La Sapienza university.

Sixty-seven academics have signed a letter saying the Pope’s views on Galileo “offend and humiliate us”.

They say he condoned the 1633 trial and conviction of Galileo for heresy. The astronomer had argued that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

The academics said it would be inappropriate for the Pope to open their academic year on Thursday.

“In the name of the secular nature of science we hope this incongruous event can be cancelled,” said the letter addressed to the university’s rector, Renato Guarini.

In a separate initiative students at La Sapienza have organised four days of protest this week. The first revolved around an anti-clerical meal of bread, pork and wine, the BBC’s Christian Fraser reports from Rome.

The banner at their lunch read: “Knowledge needs neither fathers nor priests”.

The official programme has been changed so that Pope Benedict will give a normal speech - as opposed to a keynote speech, which is usually the centrepiece of the ceremony.
Vatican Radio said the protest at La Sapienza had “a censorious tone”.

Pope Benedict was in charge of Roman Catholic doctrine in 1990 when, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he commented on the 17th-Century Galileo trial. He has been quoted as saying the trial was “reasonable and just”.

Galileo’s inquisitors maintained the scriptures indicated the Earth was stationary.*
*
Galileo, a devout Catholic, was forced to renounce his findings publicly.

Fifteen years ago Pope John Paul II officially conceded that in fact the Earth was not stationary.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7188860.stm

I just cannot believe how anti-Catholic this article is. I know the BBC isn’t too friendly to the Church (an understatement, I know) but this is just going too far. The last line in particular reveals the rabid anti-Catholicism of the writer.

 

[francesco920]

A more balanced article (but one which I still don’t completely agree with) is one written by John Allen of the *National Catholic Reporter. *Here’s an excerpt (my emphasis):

The physics professors described themselves as “indignant as scientists faithful to reason, and as teachers who dedicate our lives to the advancement and diffusion of knowledge. These words offend and humiliate us. In the name of the secularity of science, we hope that this incongruous event can still be cancelled.”

 In media interviews, the professors have also cited Benedict’s recent encyclical, *Spe Salvi*, as hostile to modern science.
 The rector of Rome’s La Sapienza, a public university, quickly confirmed that the papal lecture will go forward.

 It’s tempting indeed to see this as one of those “only-in-Italy” dust-ups.

The 18-year-old speech cited by the pope’s critics, for example, offered a reflection by Ratzinger on what he saw as a change in the secular intellectual climate, re-evaluating Galileo as part of a growing awareness of the ambivalence of scientific progress – especially under the shadow of the bomb. In that context, Benedict quoted the judgment of Feyerabend, an agnostic and skeptic, on Galileo, along with similar statements from Ernst Bloch and C.F. Von Weizsacker.

Here’s what Feyerabend wrote, as quoted by Ratzinger: ““The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Gaileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism.”
** Ratzinger actually called the statement “drastic**” – upon reflection, a fairly striking term from a figure who, at the time, headed the historical successor to the Inquisition.

Ratzinger concluded the speech by saying, “It would be absurd, on the basis of these affirmations, to construct a hurried apologetics. The faith does not grow from resentment and the rejection of rationality, but from its fundamental affirmation, and from being rooted in a still greater form of reason.”

** In a nutshell, therefore, Benedict is being faulted by the physics professors for quoting somebody else’s words, which his full text suggests he does not completely share. **(Readers who remember Regensburg can be forgiven a sense of déjà-vu.)

 An English translation of Ratzinger’s 1990 comments in Parma is here: [ncrcafe.org/node/1541](http://ncrcafe.org/node/1541)

 As for *Spe Salvi*, here’s what Benedict wrote about science:

“Francis Bacon and those who followed in the intellectual current of modernity that he inspired were wrong to believe that man would be redeemed through science. Such an expectation asks too much of science; this kind of hope is deceptive. Science can contribute greatly to making the world and mankind more human. Yet it can also destroy mankind and the world unless it is steered by forces that lie outside it.”
**
Whatever one makes of that,**** it’s hard to construe it as an attack on science and reason.**

ncrcafe.org/node/1542

This article clearly points out the inaccuracies in the BBC article.

It is articles like the BBC one that contribute to the confusion regarding Christianity and science among the public. Unfortunately, more people probably get their news from the BBC than from Catholic-friendly (or at least non-anti-Catholic) news agencies.

 

[davy39]

I’ll just bet Pope Benedict is just shaking in his shoes! But it does give the biased media something to talk about, besides politics.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’ll just bet Pope Benedict is just shaking in his shoes! But it does give the biased media something to talk about, besides politics.

Any story that makes the Catholic Church look bad is news. Any story that can be twisted to make the Catholic Church look bad is news.

There’s a name for that kind of a mindset – it’s called “bigotry.”

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Is anyone at this university defending the pope’s presence there? Any faculty or students calling this bigotry for what it is?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Is anyone at this university defending the pope’s presence there? Any faculty or students calling this bigotry for what it is?

Probably not. After all, did you ever see a counter-demonstration supporting, say Justice Clarence Thomas being booed and heckled?

Freedom of speech means you are free to agree with the left.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Probably not. After all, did you ever see a counter-demonstration supporting, say Justice Clarence Thomas being booed and heckled?

Freedom of speech means you are free to agree with the left.

How very true. The “tolerant” left doesn’t seem interested in tolerating anyone who dares disagree with them.

 

[Catherine_S]

Pope Benedict will be there ! God Bless Papa Benedict :byzsoc: !
*Bruno Dalla Piccola, professor of genetic medicine at the university, said the protests were "a shameful episode which do no credit to a great and important university". *
Both professors and students should be ashamed of themselves for trying to prevent someone who “enjoys respect at a world level” from speaking, Professor Dalla Piccola said, adding “Perhaps they are afraid of what the Pope has to say”.
timesonline.co.uk/tol/com…cle3185593.ece

 

[Migueliones]

This whole affair has brought out the ugly anti-Catholic bias in the media.

Take a look at this disgusting piece from the BBC:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7188860.stm

I just cannot believe how anti-Catholic this article is. I know the BBC isn’t too friendly to the Church (an understatement, I know) but this is just going too far. The last line in particular reveals the rabid anti-Catholicism of the writer.

What the hell?

“Rabid anti-Catholicism”??? A slight over-reaction, perhaps?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I could be wrong, but my impression is that the Church had no problem with Galileo’s heliocentrism. Copernicus had argued it before and did not draw the Church’s condemnation.

My understanding is that Galileo also felt his Copernican analysis meant the Bible was suspect. I think the Church told him that they had no problem with his theories as mathematical constructs, but considered the Bible debunking claim heretical.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I could be wrong, but my impression is that the Church had no problem with Galileo’s heliocentrism. Copernicus had argued it before and did not draw the Church’s condemnation.

My understanding is that Galileo also felt his Copernican analysis meant the Bible was suspect. I think the Church told him that they had no problem with his theories as mathematical constructs, but considered the Bible debunking claim heretical.

You are correct. There are those who want to make Cardinal Belarmino the “heavy” in this story – but Belarmino’s letters to Galilieo are gentle and pastoral, and make exactly this point – Galilieo was no theologian, and should stick to science. And Belarmino was dead before Galilieo insulted the Pope.