The Truth about the Gallileo affair - by an Atheist

[Linusthe2nd]

Tim O’Neill, a noted atheist sets the Gallileo affair straight by exploding a number of myths which have plagued the Church for nearly six hundred years. The truth has always been available but those who hated the Church continued to propagate numerous lies down to the present day, lies that you still find repeated in high school and university texts and popular non-fiction, pseudo science down to the present day. It would be nice if everyone would read the entire article, at least all Catholics. The quote below is myth # 5 which is exposed. quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-historical-event?share=1#

" 5. Galileo was condemned simply for using science to question Church teachings, which was forbidden by the Church.

As noted above, the Church did not condemn scientific inquiry - in fact, most people at the time that we would call “scientists” (a term not used until 1833, when it was first coined by William Whewell) were also churchmen. And it was not even a problem for someone to show that a traditional interpretation of Scripture or a teaching of the Church had to be reinterpreted by reference to a new understanding of the physical world. The Church taught that divine revelation and the revelations of reason all came from the same ultimate source and so if they seemed to be in conflict, it was our understanding that was the problem. As quoted above, Cardinal Bellarmine noted to Galileo that if heliocentrism could be objectively demonstrated then the scriptures that seemed to support geocentrism should and would be reassessed. Though he added “but this is not a thing to be done in haste”. The problem was that Galileo and the minority of scholars who accepted heliocentrism at that stage had not objectively proven heliocentrism, since there were still several objections that they had not fully answered and which were not answered until long after Galileo’s death (the stellar parallax problem was not definitively answered until 1838).

After Bellarmine’s ruling in 1616 Galileo had to agree that he had not proven heliocentrism. He agreed not to present the Copernican model as objective fact, since he could not prove it to be such. He agreed only to explore it and teach it as a calculating device for astronomical purposes. In 1632 the Pope asked Galileo to write a book presenting both the Copernican and Ptolemaic models, with arguments as to the strengths and weaknesses of both. Galileo produced The Dialogue Concerning the Two World Systems, but did so in a way that made it clear he considered the Copernican model superior. He also put some of the arguments used by the Pope into the mouth of a character in his dialogue called “Simplicio” - which in Italian meant “the fool”.

Angered by this, the Pope effectively withdrew his support for Galileo and allowed him to be tried by the Inquisition for breaking his agreement of 1616 in the way he argued in the Dialogue. The Inquisition found that he had and he was punished for this. "

So the Gallileo affair had absolutely nothing about a dispute between the Church and Science or about the Church limiting or criticizing or insulting science or being an enemy of science or trying to control science. It was about petulant personalities most of all, including that of a Pope and Gallileo himself and jealouse scientists themselves.

Those commenting will have been expected to have read the entire article.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Church has always been a devotee of the natural sciences. To this day the Vatican has its own astronomer. Many illustrious laymen and priests have given to science great strides toward discovery. Copernicus himself was a priest. So was the father of the science of genetics, Gregor Mendel, and so was George Lemaitre, father of the Big Bang theory. The idea that the Church has opposed science down through the centuries is one of those colossal lies that have gained general acceptance by being repeated so many times everybody thinks it has to be the truth.

The Pope’s arrogant treatment of Galileo was provoked by Galileo’s arrogant treatment of the Pope.

 

[weller2]

The problem was that Galileo and the minority of scholars who accepted heliocentrism at that stage had not objectively proven heliocentrism,

Actually this is untrue. Galileo did have an objective proof – observation of the phases of Venus which cannot be explained within the geocentric model. An additional proof existed since 1621 in the form of the laws of Kepler (which can operate only in a heliocentric system).

The real problem was that the 1633 tribunal refused to consider the new scientific evidence which was obtained between the 1615 injuction and the trial. Instead it focused on a purely legal matter – i.e. whether Gallileo violated the terms of the 1615 injuction against teaching heliocentrism as a fact. Which he of course did.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Actually this is untrue. Galileo did have an objective proof – observation of the phases of Venus which cannot be explained within the geocentric model. An additional proof existed since 1621 in the form of the laws of Kepler (which can operate only in a heliocentric system).

The real problem was that the 1633 tribunal refused to consider the new scientific evidence which was obtained between the 1615 injuction and the trial. Instead it focused on a purely legal matter – i.e. whether Gallileo violated the terms of the 1615 injuction against teaching heliocentrism as a fact. Which he of course did.

The article agrees pretty much with the Catholic Encyclopedia. It also agrees with the work of William A Wallace, an editor of the New Catholic Encylopedia, specialist in Philosophy of Science and the History of Philosophy, see his bio and list of publications.
PUBLICATIONS OF WILLIAM A. WALLACE
Books
1959 The Scientific Methodology of Theodoric of Freiberg. A Case Study of the Relationship Between Science and Philosophy. Studia Friburgensia, N.S. 26, Fribourg: The University Press, 1959. pp. xviii + 395.

1962 The Role of Demonstration in Moral Theology. A Study of Methodology in St. Thomas Aquinas. Texts and Studies 2. Washington, D.C.: The Thomist Press, 1962. Pp. x + 244.

1967a Cosmogony [St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Vol. 10 (1a.65-74)]. New York and London: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967. Pp. xxiii + 255.

1967b New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols., New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967. Staff Editor, Philosophy and related fields, edited some 900 articles comprising about 1,375,000 words; also contributed 31 articles.

1972 Causality and Scientific Explanation. Vol. 1. Medieval and Early Classical Science. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972. xii + 288 pp. Reprinted in 1981.

1974 Causality and Scientific Explanation. Vol. 2. Classical and Contemporary Science. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1974. Pp. xi + 422. Reprinted in 1981.

1977a The Elements of Philosophy: A Compendium for Philosophers and Theologians, New York: Alba House, 1977. Pp. xx + 342.

1977b Galileo’s Early Notebooks: The Physical Questions. A Translation from the Latin, with Historical and Paleographical Commentary. Notre Dame: The University of Notre Dame Press, 1977. Pp. xiv + 321.

1979 From a Realist Point of View: Essays on the Philosophy of Science. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1979. Pp. xii + 376.

1981 Prelude to Galileo: Essays on Medieval and Sixteenth-Century Sources of Galileo’s Thought. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 62. Dordrecht-Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1981.

1983 From a Realist Point of View: Essays on the Philosophy of Science. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, Second Edition, 1983. Pp. x + 340.

1984 Galileo and His Sources: The Heritage of the Collegio Romano in Galileo’s Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.

1986 Reinterpreting Galileo (editor), Studies in Philosophy and History of Philosophy 15, Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986.

1988 Galileo Galilei, Tractatio de praecognitionibus et praecognitis and Tractatio de demonstratione (co-editor).Transcribed from the Latin autograph by W. F. Edwards, with an introduction, notes, and commentary by W. A. Wallace. Padua: Editrice Antenore, 1988.

1991 Galileo, the Jesuits and the Medieval Aristotle, Collected Studies Series, CS346. Aldershot (UK): Variorum Publishing, 1991.

1992a Galileo’s Logic of Discovery and Proof. The Background, Content, and Use of His Appropriated Treatises on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 137. Dordrecht- Boston-London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992. Xxiii + 323 pp.

1992b Galileo’s Logical Treatises. A Translation, With Notes and Commentary, of His Appropriated Latin Questions on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 138. Dordrecht- Boston-London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992. xix + 239 pp.

1996a The Modeling of Nature: Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Nature in Synthesis, Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996. xx + 450 pp.

1996b Albertus Magnus (guest editor). American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 2. “Foreword,” pp. 1-6. “Albert the Great’s Inventive Logic: His Exposition of the Topics of Aristotle,” pp. 11-39.

1999 Encyclopedia of the Renaissance (editor for philosophy and science), 6 vols., New York, N.Y.: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1999; contributed 26 articles; planned, solicited, and edited some 150 entries in philosophy, science, technology, and medicine.

As you see, he is a specialist on Galileo and Medieval philosophy. He has a Phd in Philosophy and Theology and an MS in Physics before four years of service as a line officer in the U.S. Navy in WW2 - and he still lives.

innerexplorations.com/philtext/ww.htm

And what is your expertise?

Pax
Linus2nd.

 

[abucs]

Actually this is untrue. Galileo did have an objective proof – observation of the phases of Venus which cannot be explained within the geocentric model. An additional proof existed since 1621 in the form of the laws of Kepler (which can operate only in a heliocentric system).

The real problem was that the 1633 tribunal refused to consider the new scientific evidence which was obtained between the 1615 injuction and the trial. Instead it focused on a purely legal matter – i.e. whether Gallileo violated the terms of the 1615 injuction against teaching heliocentrism as a fact. Which he of course did.

I think that there were more than just two views of planetary movements at the time. It is correct that the phases of Venus was strong evidence against all solar system bodies orbiting the Earth. It did not prove a Sun centred solar system though.

Other theories, such as all of the planets except the earth orbiting the Sun and the Sun orbiting the earth was consistent with the observed phases of Venus. From memory, Tycho Brahe supported such a view at one time or another.

 

[abucs]

… a number of myths which have plagued the Church for nearly six hundred years.

I don’t know if this is correct. I think that the perception that has been created is that the Galileo affair was such a (pardon the pun) earth shattering affair that it reverberated from that time.

I am not aware of any large scale condemnation of the Church or any mass mobilisation against the Church at that time because of the decision.

In fact the Tuscan ambassador to the Papal court wrote a letter to his Tuscan king saying that he had never seen any other convict treated so well. (Galileo was a citizen of Tuscany and lived there after the trial). The Pope wrote to Galileo asking if there was anything he could do to make his time more comfortable and Galileo continued to receive a special Papal pension, presumably for his scientific endevours. An archbishop invited Galileo to stay at his house for 6 months after the trial.

For me it shows a very embarrassing case that is used as THE modern flag bearer of Church persecution against a generalised ‘science’. It is interesting to study why so many people believe such Church persecution to have occurred, and to speculate why they want to believe it.

It would be interesting to know when and by whom the Galileo affair was first used as a stick to beat the Church. I do not believe it to stem from 600 years ago but to date from much later.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t know if this is correct. I think that the perception that has been created is that the Galileo affair was such a (pardon the pun) earth shattering affair that it reverberated from that time.

I am not aware of any large scale condemnation of the Church or any mass mobilisation against the Church at that time because of the decision.

In fact the Tuscan ambassador to the Papal court wrote a letter to his Tuscan king saying that he had never seen any other convict treated so well. (Galileo was a citizen of Tuscany and lived there after the trial). The Pope wrote to Galileo asking if there was anything he could do to make his time more comfortable and Galileo continued to receive a special Papal pension, presumably for his scientific endevours. An archbishop invited Galileo to stay at his house for 6 months after the trial.

For me it shows a very embarrassing case that is used as THE modern flag bearer of Church persecution against a generalised ‘science’. It is interesting to study why so many people believe such Church persecution to have occurred, and to speculate why they want to believe it.

It would be interesting to know when and by whom the Galileo affair was first used as a stick to beat the Church. I do not believe it to stem from 600 years ago but to date from much later.

I think you have not kept track on what goes on in the schools, and the universities, in the media, in periodicals, debates, and in common conversation. It all started with the Reformation and the Enlightment. See the blogspot of Ed Feser and other Catholic philosophers of science and nature. For example, William A Wallace O.P. and John A. Weisheiple O.P…

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[StrawberryJam]

Actually this is untrue. Galileo did have an objective proof – observation of the phases of Venus which cannot be explained within the geocentric model. An additional proof existed since 1621 in the form of the laws of Kepler (which can operate only in a heliocentric system).

The real problem was that the 1633 tribunal refused to consider the new scientific evidence which was obtained between the 1615 injuction and the trial. Instead it focused on a purely legal matter – i.e. whether Gallileo violated the terms of the 1615 injuction against teaching heliocentrism as a fact. Which he of course did.

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums.

Strawberry Jam

 

[inocente]

The truth has always been available but those who hated the Church continued to propagate numerous lies down to the present day, lies that you still find repeated in high school and university texts and popular non-fiction

Ooooh, I love conspiracy theories.

Your blogger has no track record and styles himself an “amateur historian”. He gives no citations for the supposed “myths”. I wonder if he is using the tabloid journalist trick of making things up purely so he can look clever by knocking them down.

Whatever, I digress. Here’s someone who did have a track record, although he wasn’t a blogger and so might not be much of an authority in your book. His Eminence Cardinal Paul Poupard, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture in 1992. In his summary to the Pope, of the conclusions reached by the Pontifical Commission on the Galileo Case, he says:

“It is in that historical and cultural framework, far removed from our own times, that Galileo’s judges, incapable of dissociating faith from an age-old cosmology, believed, quite wrongly, that the adoption of the Copernican revolution, in fact not yet definitively proven, was such as to undermine Catholic tradition, and that it was their duty to forbid its being taught. This subjective error of judgement, so clear to us today, led them to a disciplinary measure from which Galileo ‘had much to suffer’. These mistakes must be frankly recognised, as you, Holy Father, have requested.” - Papal Addresses, Vatican City 2003, p 248 (pdf)

Is that an example of the “lies that you still find repeated in high school and university texts”, or could you cite some examples?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Ooooh, I love conspiracy theories.

It was no conspiracy theory, it was something akin to the " dictatorship of political correctness. " For example it is a well known fact that in many science departments at the university level you cannot get hired if you do not, for example, believe in evolution. And the list goes on. And of course the shoe comes down hardest on people of faith. One would have to be utterly blind not to see it in even everyday social interactions.

But the cultural fact I alluded to was the result of certain " converging intrests, " desireous of destroying the Catholic Church, the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Need I remind you the horrors resulting from both. Yes, real imprisonment in real dungeons, not house arrest in one’s own villa, with permission to continue to write about his heliocentric theory and to recieve all the visitors he wished.

And, oh yes, shall we mention the real murders, drawing and quartering, the real beheadings of priests and nuns and anyone sympathizing with " Popish " ways. All by way of " converging interests, " fueled by deep seated hatreds. Read the histories!

Your blogger has no track record and styles himself an “amateur historian”. He gives no citations for the supposed “myths”. I wonder if he is using the tabloid journalist trick of making things up purely so he can look clever by knocking them down.

He may not be a professional, but I gave you two very reliable names that are. Read them, I have. They are scholars of the highest rank. Wallace in particular went to the original source documents. But the fact is that O’neill is an atheist defending the Church, contrary to the historic climate of political correctness which has fueled this controversy for 500 years of so. A brave stand for which I am sure he has received flack from his atheist friends.

Whatever, I digress. Here’s someone who did have a track record, although he wasn’t a blogger and so might not be much of an authority in your book. His Eminence Cardinal Paul Poupard, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture in 1992. In his summary to the Pope, of the conclusions reached by the Pontifical Commission on the Galileo Case, he says:

“It is in that historical and cultural framework, far removed from our own times, that Galileo’s judges, incapable of dissociating faith from an age-old cosmology, believed, quite wrongly, that the adoption of the Copernican revolution, in fact not yet definitively proven, was such as to undermine Catholic tradition, and that it was their duty to forbid its being taught. This subjective error of judgement, so clear to us today, led them to a disciplinary measure from which Galileo ‘had much to suffer’. These mistakes must be frankly recognised, as you, Holy Father, have requested.” - Papal Addresses, Vatican City 2003, p 248 (pdf)

Well, it wasn’t on page 248! The reader may find the address here: catholicnewsagency.com/news/galileo_and_the_vatican_debunks_black_legend_about_scientist_and_the_church/ He refers to the book, Gallileo and the Vatican.
Now you and the rest of us can go read the book. How about that.

I have given the reader the resources of a renowned scholar, William A. Wallace O.P. who has written about 10 books on Gallileo. He provides ample proof that what O’neill said is true. I have read several of them myself. The bottom line is that Gallileo had the personality of an egotistical jerk and the Pope was equally egotistical and overly sensitive. As a result Gallileo was handed over to the Inquisition and was sentenced to house arrest in his own villa, he had to retract the statment that he had proven heliocentrism as a fact and was forbidden to teach it as an established scientific fact.. He was not forbidden to portray it as one theory among many that circulated among scholars at that period of history. And as O’neill pointed out, that fact was not established until 1838.

Is that an example of the “lies that you still find repeated in high school and university texts”, or could you cite some examples?

You quote Cardinal Paupard in your rant. I notice you did not select this quote, " “All of this was used, especially beginning with the Enlightenment, as a weapon of war against the Church,” the cardinal added, and today it is bizarre that ideas “without any foundation” continue to be spread around, such as the legend that Galileo was burned at the stake when he was never even imprisoned. " Strange you should omit a quotation which supports my contention and that of O’neill Now I wonder about that omission! But the reader can go to my link and read the entire address:
catholicnewsagency.com/news/galileo_and_the_vatican_debunks_black_legend_about_scientist_and_the_church/

I continue to marvel about your strong reaction whenever anyone attempts to rectify the " Black Legend" of myths surrounding this case in an attempt to heal the rift between science and the Church which has been perpetuated these last many centrys. Do you object that science should have a less adverserial attitude toward the Catholic Church? Do you object that the myths be corrected? Do you object that Gallileo, precursor to Newton, should be shown as less objective than portrayed, and less " saintly? "

There are of course those who, for reasons related to some ideology, hope that the breach will never be healed, that science will ever look upon the Church, especially the Catholic Church, as The Enemy.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

It was no conspiracy theory, it was something akin to the " dictatorship of political correctness. " For example it is a well known fact that in many science departments at the university level you cannot get hired if you do not, for example, believe in evolution. And the list goes on. And of course the shoe comes down hardest on people of faith. One would have to be utterly blind not to see it in even everyday social interactions.

I see. So you say belief in a flat earth, geocentrism or creationism shouldn’t count against applicants to science jobs?

Logically then, you’d say that being an atheist or Satanist shouldn’t count against applicants for the priesthood. Being illiterate shouldn’t count against applicants for lexicography. Being a convicted child abuser shouldn’t count against applicants for jobs as child minders.

Your support for political correctness is touching but a bit out there bro.

But the cultural fact I alluded to was the result of certain " converging intrests, " desireous of destroying the Catholic Church, the Reformation and the Enlightenment.

Are you being serious?

*And, oh yes, shall we mention the real murders, drawing and quartering, the real beheadings of priests and nuns and anyone sympathizing with " Popish " ways. All by way of " converging interests, " fueled by deep seated hatreds. Read the histories! *

Shall we mention being burned at the stake simply for owning a bible in English?

Well no, let’s be Christian and forgive a past of which we took no part. The Troubles in Northern Ireland give a stark lesson of what happens when religion is used to feud over a long gone history.

He may not be a professional, but I gave you two very reliable names that are. Read them, I have. They are scholars of the highest rank. Wallace in particular went to the original source documents. But the fact is that O’neill is an atheist defending the Church, contrary to the historic climate of political correctness which has fueled this controversy for 500 years of so.

I don’t care, he’s a self-confessed amateur historian making a living by self-promotion, he’s not even a minor celeb, much less anyone to be trusted as an authority.

“It is in that historical and cultural framework, far removed from our own times, that Galileo’s judges, incapable of dissociating faith from an age-old cosmology, believed, quite wrongly, that the adoption of the Copernican revolution, in fact not yet definitively proven, was such as to undermine Catholic tradition, and that it was their duty to forbid its being taught. This subjective error of judgement, so clear to us today, led them to a disciplinary measure from which Galileo ‘had much to suffer’. These mistakes must be frankly recognised, as you, Holy Father, have requested.” - Papal Addresses, Vatican City 2003, p 248 (pdf)

Well, it wasn’t on page 248!

Sorry it was page 348. Easy enough to find from the contents page though: “1992, 31 October (Card. Poupard’s Report on the Galileo Case) . 344”

I have given the reader the resources of a renowned scholar, William A. Wallace O.P. who has written about 10 books on Gallileo. He provides ample proof that what O’neill said is true. I have read several of them myself. The bottom line is that Gallileo had the personality of an egotistical jerk and the Pope was equally egotistical and overly sensitive. As a result Gallileo was handed over to the Inquisition and was sentenced to house arrest in his own villa, he had to retract the statment that he had proven heliocentrism as a fact and was forbidden to teach it as an established scientific fact.…

Galileo’s personality is irrelevant. While you may find it inconvenient, Cardinal Poupard’s report to JPII on the findings of the commission instituted by the Pope himself gives the definitive view of the Church.

You quote Cardinal Paupard in your rant.

How is quoting the official Church inquiry a rant? I think the absence of hoards of posters coming to your support may indicate who is ranting here.

• I notice you did not select this quote, " “All of this was used, especially beginning with the Enlightenment, as a weapon of war against the Church”*

That’s not in his report to the Pope of the commission’s findings. It may be his personal opinion but it is not an official finding.

*I continue to marvel about your strong reaction whenever anyone attempts to rectify the " Black Legend" of myths surrounding this case in an attempt to heal the rift between science and the Church which has been perpetuated these last many centrys. Do you object that science should have a less adverserial attitude toward the Catholic Church? Do you object that the myths be corrected? Do you object that Gallileo, precursor to Newton, should be shown as less objective than portrayed, and less " saintly? "

There are of course those who, for reasons related to some ideology, hope that the breach will never be healed, that science will ever look upon the Church, especially the Catholic Church, as The Enemy.*

Now there’s a rant.

Regarding this supposed rift, it may have escaped your notice that a number of scientists are Catholics. And as 1 in 4 people in the US are Catholic, I guess around 1 in 4 students in science classes are Catholic, 1 in 4 science textbook authors are Catholic, and 1 in 4 science professors are Catholic, so it shouldn’t exactly be difficult for them to overcome this conspiracy for which you’ve provided no evidence.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I see. So you say belief in a flat earth, geocentrism or creationism shouldn’t count against applicants to science jobs?

Logically then, you’d say that being an atheist or Satanist shouldn’t count against applicants for the priesthood. Being illiterate shouldn’t count against applicants for lexicography. Being a convicted child abuser shouldn’t count against applicants for jobs as child minders.

Your support for political correctness is touching but a bit out there bro.

Are you being serious?

Shall we mention being burned at the stake simply for owning a bible in English?

Well no, let’s be Christian and forgive a past of which we took no part. The Troubles in Northern Ireland give a stark lesson of what happens when religion is used to feud over a long gone history.

I don’t care, he’s a self-confessed amateur historian making a living by self-promotion, he’s not even a minor celeb, much less anyone to be trusted as an authority.

Sorry it was page 348. Easy enough to find from the contents page though: “1992, 31 October (Card. Poupard’s Report on the Galileo Case) . 344”

Galileo’s personality is irrelevant. While you may find it inconvenient, Cardinal Poupard’s report to JPII on the findings of the commission instituted by the Pope himself gives the definitive view of the Church.

How is quoting the official Church inquiry a rant? I think the absence of hoards of posters coming to your support may indicate who is ranting here.

That’s not in his report to the Pope of the commission’s findings. It may be his personal opinion but it is not an official finding.

Now there’s a rant.

Regarding this supposed rift, it may have escaped your notice that a number of scientists are Catholics. And as 1 in 4 people in the US are Catholic, I guess around 1 in 4 students in science classes are Catholic, 1 in 4 science textbook authors are Catholic, and 1 in 4 science professors are Catholic, so it shouldn’t exactly be difficult for them to overcome this conspiracy for which you’ve provided no evidence.

Nice attempt at a recovery, but it just doesn’t wash. All one has to do is read my posts and have to boot a little knowledge of history. But to rectify one of your comments, the article by Cardinal Poupard was the one you referred to. But your source omitted it. I gave you the link. Apparently you refuse to acknowledge it because of your preconceived notions.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is that an example of the “lies that you still find repeated in high school and university texts”, or could you cite some examples?

breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/24/Atheist-Group-To-Distribute-Pamphlets-in-Public-Schools-Depicting-Cartoon-Bible-Sexually-Assaulting-Woman

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I see. So you say belief in a flat earth, geocentrism or creationism shouldn’t count against applicants to science jobs?

Logically then, you’d say that being an atheist or Satanist shouldn’t count against applicants for the priesthood. Being illiterate shouldn’t count against applicants for lexicography. Being a convicted child abuser shouldn’t count against applicants for jobs as child minders.

Your support for political correctness is touching but a bit out there bro.

Are you being serious?

Shall we mention being burned at the stake simply for owning a bible in English?

Well no, let’s be Christian and forgive a past of which we took no part. The Troubles in Northern Ireland give a stark lesson of what happens when religion is used to feud over a long gone history.

I don’t care, he’s a self-confessed amateur historian making a living by self-promotion, he’s not even a minor celeb, much less anyone to be trusted as an authority.

Sorry it was page 348. Easy enough to find from the contents page though: “1992, 31 October (Card. Poupard’s Report on the Galileo Case) . 344”

Galileo’s personality is irrelevant. While you may find it inconvenient, Cardinal Poupard’s report to JPII on the findings of the commission instituted by the Pope himself gives the definitive view of the Church.

How is quoting the official Church inquiry a rant? I think the absence of hoards of posters coming to your support may indicate who is ranting here.

That’s not in his report to the Pope of the commission’s findings. It may be his personal opinion but it is not an official finding.

Now there’s a rant.

Regarding this supposed rift, it may have escaped your notice that a number of scientists are Catholics. And as 1 in 4 people in the US are Catholic, I guess around 1 in 4 students in science classes are Catholic, 1 in 4 science textbook authors are Catholic, and 1 in 4 science professors are Catholic, so it shouldn’t exactly be difficult for them to overcome this conspiracy for which you’ve provided no evidence.

Aside from the fact that no intelligent and well read person can view you exaggerations, hyperboly, and insults as arguments or refutations, I am curious about the source for your implied accusation here: " Shall we mention being burned at the stake simply for owning a bible in English? "

I know you will provide us with reliable documation as to who, when, where, by whom or by whose authority was such a thing done, if indeed it did happen.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/24/Atheist-Group-To-Distribute-Pamphlets-in-Public-Schools-Depicting-Cartoon-Bible-Sexually-Assaulting-Woman

Holy cow, that will hit home since Inocente has just accused the Catholic Church ( I presume) of burning someone at the stake just fow owning a Bible printed in English. I guess the secular Inquisition is alive an well.

Linus2nd

 

[abucs]

Hello Innocente,

is there any support on the web for the claim that people were being burnt at the stake for owning a version of the Bible. or any other religious text for that matter? If it is true, I would like to read about it.

Thanks.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Hello Innocente,

is there any support on the web for the claim that people were being burnt at the stake for owning a version of the Bible. or any other religious text for that matter? If it is true, I would like to read about it.

Thanks.

Good question. I can’t think of any Christians who killed atheists for being atheists. On the other hand, it is estimated that 12-20 million Christians were killed during the regime of the atheist dictator Stalin of the soviet Union. Churches were shut down, church property was seized. Also many Jews were killed. This is what atheism produces when it is in power. Whereas in America today atheism is on the march as it never was before. We are moving toward an atheistic socialist government that the Russians gave up on 20 years ago. Ironically, as soon as the atheist government collapsed the return of Christianity in Russia was revived. Will we have to go through the same cycle?

 

[abucs]

Good question. I can’t think of any Christians who killed atheists for being atheists. On the other hand, it is estimated that 12-20 million Christians were killed during the regime of the atheist dictator Stalin of the soviet Union. Churches were shut down, church property was seized. Also many Jews were killed. This is what atheism produces when it is in power. Whereas in America today atheism is on the march as it never was before. We are moving toward an atheistic socialist government that the Russians gave up on 20 years ago. Ironically, as soon as the atheist government collapsed the return of Christianity in Russia was revived. Will we have to go through the same cycle?

Hello Charlemane,

I think there has been a strong push in academia for the challenging and removal of Christian values and thought in favour of what was considered universalist progressive enlightenment. The idea of a successful communist utopia was a very strong belief which gave comfort to the idea of being ‘on the right side of history’. With the collapse of that belief I think a lot of the progressive enlightenment push goes back to being a theoretical idea and forced interpretation of history.

Unfortunately for progressives. they now have to defend dozens of really horrific 20th century historical examples of ‘progressive enlightened’ governments. The reaction by such progressives seems to be to distance themselves from it and play down the disaster. As such, I think the moral and intellectual base of progressive enlightenment has cracked and it is much harder to persuade intelligent people of their cause with any confidence that they actually are on the right side of history.

The problem for the church now seems to be handling all of the misinformation that was promoted in that time by people who cared little for the truth and dismissed Christian viewpoints because they believed they were on the right side of history. A history which now can be seen to have been largely manufactured to attract recruits and justify their own belief systems.

So to answer your question, I am hoping we will not have to go through the same cycle of authoritarian socialist government with its own amended morality code. I trust there are enough intelligent people to assess where such a movement ends up taking us all. In that respect we have the advantage of historical hindsight not available to the Russians, Ethiopians, Yugoslavs, Cambodians, Yemeni, Romanians, etc etc of past tmes.

 

[Nixbits]

abucs:

is there any support on the web for the claim that people were being burnt at the stake for owning a version of the Bible. or any other religious text for that matter?

There is plenty of information available on the web relating to well-documented instances of people being burnt for ‘heresy’. For example, there were six cases during the chancellorship of Saint Thomas More. The heresy associated with these cases was primarily the ownership of books banned by More, such as books by Luther, Zwingli, Tyndale, Frith and Joy. In 1530 Thomas More had made illegal the ownership of any bible in English, French or Dutch.

Richard Bayfield, a Benedictine monk and book pedlar, John Tewkesbury, a leather-seller, James Bainham, a Middle Temple lawyer, Sir Thomas Hitton, and Thomas Bilney were just some of those burned to death. It’s a very long time ago, of course, but we shouldn’t forget that these were real people who suffered and died for their faith.

Saint Thomas More was directly involved in three out of the six cases of heresy which resulted in burnings during his chancellorship in 1531 and 1532 and he actively denounced two of the others: I went to Saint Thomas More Roman Catholic Primary School. Needless to say, More’s role in the deaths of these people was not mentioned during my Catholic education.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Saint Thomas More was directly involved in three out of the six cases of heresy which resulted in burnings during his chancellorship in 1531 and 1532 and he actively denounced two of the others: I went to Saint Thomas More Roman Catholic Primary School. Needless to say, More’s role in the deaths of these people was not mentioned during my Catholic education.

Needless to say, if you had attended public school, you would never have heard of More’s courage in standing up to the heresy of Henry VIII. Henry had More’s head chopped off because he would not recognize Henry as supreme head of the Church of England.