The Truth about the Gallileo affair - by an Atheist

[oldcelt]

This is the important point on which we differ. You seem to be implying that the Church and Science were regularly at loggerheads.

The Catholic Church has traditionally supported science from the Middle Ages on, and many Catholic scholars contributed to the development of various scientific disciplines throughout those centuries.** The treatment of Galileo was an anomaly, rather than par for the course. Again, it was an unfortunate clash of a vain pope with an arrogant astronomer. **

Science and Religion by Richard Olson documents the mutual benefits derived by the interactions between religion and science from the 1500s to the 1700s.

Exceptionally well stated. Thankfully, such conflicts as this can no longer occur.

 

[Ubenedictus]

In Galileo’s case the tribunal made no effort to evaluate the nature of the claims, but pronounced them heretical anyway.

it is my opinion that we can say this only because we are in the 20th century and looking backwards, in a century when many learned men were shooting at the copernican model and the was hardly conclusive proof for it, i believe the clerics had little options than to dissuade galileo from insisting that his hypothesis were fact without the needed proof.

 

[Ubenedictus]

The 1633 trial proceedings never touch the issue of evidence. It’s not that the tribunal did not understand the evidence; the tribunal was simply not interested in the evidence. Galileo never even got to argue his case for Earth’s motion.

that is probably because the 1633 tribunal has very little business with looking at proof. The time for proof was 1616 when galileo failed to show conclusive proof for his model that neccessitate a rereading of scripture. 1616 already talked about the inconclusiveness of galileo’s proof, 1633 was about whether or not galileo has broken the previous agreement that prohibits him from teaching his thesis as fact.

As for the evidence itself, by the time of the trial there was plenty. Virtually all contrarian points have been falsified by the time of the trial:

• No direct proof – Galileo published observations of phases of Venus in 1610. So Inquisition’s insistence that heliocentrism is an unverified hypothesis in 1616 had no factual basis. Over the 23 years before the publication of Starry Messenger and the final trial, the observations have been repeated numerous times by different people. NB the first people who repeated his observations were… Jesuits, who have been told to do so by Cardinal Bellarmine.

you seemed more learned in the natural sciences, i took a few of such courses simply to add my grades, so i’ll ask you to please explain the phases of Venus and tell us whether those phases aren’t in agreement with the 3rd popular model of the time.

My point is that the said “proof” could be used to prove a number of things which are not really the copernicus thesis.

• Stellar parallax – all professionals knew that it was inobservable at the time, so the issue was moot. NB the issue of stellar parallax is a tricky one, because the stars are supposed to move with respect to…other stars. But, there was no strong proof that Sun is a star until 18th century. Ca. 1600, you could still believe that stars are points of light on a sphere – in which case, of course, the entrire sphere shifts with Earth’s orbital motion, and you have nothing against which you could measure the parallax.

it is my opinion that you are guilty of overgeneralisation, it is funny that you clain “all” professioners knew that the parallax was a non issue because the said parallax was the very reason sun centered system was dismissed since the times of plato…i believe to make that claim then you must have read very astrologer of that generation and must have found quotes from their works that support your claims.

Did the tribunal call any expert witnesses? Yes - a theologian. The tribunal did not interrogate any astronomers; who would have testified that Venus indeed moves in a way which cannot be explained by a geocentric system, but can be explained easily with a heliocentric system. Nor did the tribunal question an astrologer (and even the Pope had one!) who would immediately confirm superior speed and precision of Kepler’s method of ephemeris calculation.

i petty much doubt the tribunal needed an array of astrologers as they were the first to call galileo new finding poo, and yes galileo did rake up a pretty big storm of science men against himself when he began insisting on his theory as fact.

It was a kangaroo court.

i believe this is your respected opinion.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12481754:

And you still

ignore this question!

Why should I, you would only extrapolate that into some imagined guilt for Thomas More?

So, you refuse (repeatedly) to answer a directly relevant question…

Your so called evidence has been polluted by the defenders of the Reformation for 200 years, why should I trust any of them?

…and you simply assert, without evidence, that any contrary evidence I provide must be falsified…

Oh well, I don’t have time to wade through all the " evidence " you claim to have.

…and you refuse to read it (after demanding very imperiously that I provide it)…

It wouldn’t matter any way, I have never seen you change you mind about anything.

…then you accuse me of being close minded!!

I would point out that it is a little naive to expect to see a radical change of opinion in an internet debate, but if you were (hypothetically) willing to engage in actual debate, you might at least hope to either:

• understand the opposing point of view better
• get the opposition to understand your point of view better

I certainly will never believe Thomas More misstreated anyone.

Oh, good. So you have an open mind then!

I would remind you that I did not start this thread to vilify the Church, you started it apparently to lambast anyone who thinks the Church was wrong to persecute Galilieo. In your OP you explicitly accused us of lying in educational textbooks. Despite posting a noble sounding maxim:

Provide the documation or admit it didn’t happen. To hurl out accusations of moral culpability is more than gossip, it is slander.

…you have failed to apply this maxim to your own OP, despite claiming that:

I will make sure you and Dr. Taffey get the e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

…this condescending spelled out ‘e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e’ never materialised!

I understand that neither you nor others around here will be happy unless you can hang that around her neck.

The only things I want to “hang around her neck” (or, more appropriately, yours) are :
a) acceptance that the Church is not only fallible (at least on some topics) but has actually failed from time to time
b) realisation that when you have failed, the right thing to do is to accept that and amend one’s behaviour accordingly. Not to try to deny such failure, let alone to attack your victims again or accuse them of lying. That is the sort of knee-jerk defensiveness that leads to things like the paedophile priest scandal. (That is to say not the fact that there were paedophile priests, but that the Catholic Establishment tried to protect them from justice)

 

[DrTaffy]

Because he couldn’t prove (but support) Copernicanism true conclusively and he tried his pass his opinions as facts?

Actually, according to pretty much all modern astronomers the evidence he provided was perfectly adequate to ‘prove’ (in the scientific sense) the heliocentric model over the geocentric one.

The fig-leaf Catholic die-hards stick to is the lack of observable stellar paralax, but this is a non-starter as Galileo himself had pointed out that this was perfectly explainable if one assumed that the stars were incredibly far away - as we now know to be the case.

And even if you (or the Pope) were unconvinced by his evidence, so what? Doesn’t he have the right to express his opinion?

Was the Pope, after all, not vigorously expressing his opinion that the sun went around the earth, as a fact, with vastly less evidence?

And even then, even if the Pope had had as much evidence as Galileo, Galileo only wanted the right to express his opinion. The Pope wanted to both express his opinion, and prevent Galileo from expressing his, and to force Galileo to publically espouse the geocentric model. Under threat of torture. A sick old man. And you defend this??

He called Kepler and Brahe heretics and ignored their work to his detriment while clinging on to his circular orbits.

Yep. He had the right to be wrong, as well as the right to be right. That is how science (and freedom of speech and freedom of religion) work.

Because he back-stabbed his friends including Pope Urban III?

How many of them did he have dragged across Italy in the middle of winter when they were old and sick and then threatened with torture in order to force them to publicly renounce their life’s work and deeply held professional beliefs?

 

[DrTaffy]

This is the important point on which we differ. You seem to be implying that the Church and Science were regularly at loggerheads.

(emphasis added)

Where do I say that? Nowhere, of course.

This is part of the problem. As soon as anyone dares suggest that the Church has ever been less than absolutely right about everything, the gloves come off and any strawman or other dirty tactic is fair play.

It is only a tiny minority that do this, but it strongly influences the outsider’s view of the Catholic community as a whole.

 

[weller2]

that is probably because the 1633 tribunal has very little business with looking at proof. The time for proof was 1616 when galileo failed to show conclusive proof for his model that neccessitate a rereading of scripture. 1616 already talked about the inconclusiveness of galileo’s proof, 1633 was about whether or not galileo has broken the previous agreement that prohibits him from teaching his thesis as fact.

Which is precisely the problem. Because by 1633 it was already known (thanks to Kepler’s 1621 book) that the 1616 injunction has absolutely no merit and the Earth does, in fact, go around the Sun.

 

[Stephen168]

Which is precisely the problem. Because by 1633 it was already known (thanks to Kepler’s 1621 book) that the 1616 injunction has absolutely no merit and the Earth does, in fact, go around the Sun.

Your error is claiming that heliocentricism was a proven fact, and it was Kepler who was on trial.

 

[weller2]

Your error is misunderstanding the nature of an inquisitorial trial.

The tribunal should have first determined the facts of the case. It neglected to do so.

 

[Stephen168]

Your error is misunderstanding the nature of an inquisitorial trial.

The tribunal should have first determined the facts of the case. It neglected to do so.

The inquisition were trials about heresy, not science.

 

[DrTaffy]

Stephen168:
The relative merit of the heliocentric versus the geocentric cosmological models is indisputably a scientific question.

It may also be a religious issue, depending on your beliefs, but at that point I refer you to StAugustine’s comments (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) about not making your religion look stupid and ignorant.

 

[Stephen168]

The relative merit of the heliocentric versus the geocentric cosmological models is indisputably a scientific question.

Which was not the subject of the inquisition; heresy was.

It may also be a religious issue, depending on your beliefs, but at that point I refer you to StAugustine’s comments (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) about not making your religion look stupid and ignorant.

Yes, the Catholic Church knew this.

 

[weller2]

Which was not the subject of the inquisition; heresy was.

Which brings us to the following question: Can a statement be both true and heretical?

Because such was the status of heliocentrism after 1633.

 

[Stephen168]

Which brings us to the following question: Can a statement be both true and heretical?

What statement?

Because such was the status of heliocentrism after 1633.

What was the status of heliocentrism in 1633?

 

[DrTaffy]

Which was not the subject of the inquisition; heresy was.

You are confusing a set and its elements. The subject of the Inquisition was Galileo’s support of heliocentrism and whether or not that support was heretical. ‘Heresy’ is not an assertion, but an assertion can be heresy.

Yes, the Catholic Church knew this.

It clearly did not, or at least the Pope and the Inquisition did not, as they did exactly what St Augustine warned against doing.

weller2;12502717:

Which brings us to the following question: Can a statement be both true and heretical?

What statement?

Any statement. Can any statement be both factually true and yet still be heretical?

If not, then the factual evidence that Galileo was correct was directly relevant to the trial.

If you say that a statement can be both factually true and heretical, then I formally dub thee poster-boy for why the Galileo controversy is still relevant today.

What was the status of heliocentrism in 1633?

True, demonstrated as such, and denounced by the Pope and the Inquisition as heresy, to the background hum of St Augustine spinning in his grave. :nope:

 

[Stephen168]

The subject of the Inquisition was Galileo’s support of heliocentrism and whether or not that support was heretical.

True. Define heresy.

It clearly did not, or at least the Pope and the Inquisition did not, as they did exactly what St Augustine warned against doing.

It clearly did. And it reserved for itself the authority of exegesis in light of the Protestant Revolt and the Thirty Years War and all.

Any statement. Can any statement be both factually true and yet still be heretical?

Define true and heretical?

True, demonstrated as such…

It what way was it demonstrated true?

 

[DrTaffy]

True.

Then why did you deny it?

Define heresy.

Either learn to ask politely, or learn to do your own research. If you have some personal redefinition of ‘heresy’ that makes your assertion remotely tenable, try giving it.

It clearly did.

Then how do you explain the fact that they did exactly what St Augustine warned against. So blatantly and so embarrassingly that even now, centuries later, Catholics are still humiliated by the history?

Define true and heretical?

So you cannot answer the question? If you have to give your own personal definitions for your answer to make any sense, do feel free to do so.

It what way was it demonstrated true?

Literally and explicitly.

Nor have you answered the point that since the Church was both insisting that geocentrism was fact and trying to force others to say so, under threat of torture, it was the Church that had the duty to provide absolute proof of its position, not Galileo.

Merely stating a scientific opinion should be permitted, always. It’s called ‘freedom of speech’

 

[Stephen168]

Then why did you deny it?

Either learn to ask politely, or learn to do your own research. If you have some personal redefinition of ‘heresy’ that makes your assertion remotely tenable, try giving it.

Then how do you explain the fact that they did exactly what St Augustine warned against. So blatantly and so embarrassingly that even now, centuries later, Catholics are still humiliated by the history?

Literally and explicitly.

Nor have you answered the point that since the Church was both insisting that geocentrism was fact and trying to force others to say so, under threat of torture, it was the Church that had the duty to provide absolute proof of its position, not Galileo.

As I said, the subject of the inquisition was heresy. While you seem to agree, you don’t seem to know what heresy is.

While the subject of the inquisition was not science, heliocentrism was not a proven fact at the the time of the trial. Galileo had nothing more than you have; a claim with no scientific support. The seekers of truth, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew, had no desire to change their biblical exegesis, or their view of the heavens based on one guys unsubstantiated claim.

Which brings us to the following question: Can a statement be both true and heretical?

Seems like you’re asking if a thing can be a chair and red at the same time.

So you cannot answer the question? If you have to give your own personal definitions for your answer to make any sense, do feel free to do so.

You don’t have an understanding of heresy and you seem to imply that truth and heresy are synonymous, so I’m asking you to define your terms so I can answer your question.
Because we are talking about the Galileo affair, I would think there would be a specific statement that you or weller2 have in mind.

Merely stating a scientific opinion should be permitted, always. It’s called ‘freedom of speech’

Freedom of Speech, what a great idea. Maybe before the close of the 17th century a western nation will codify that idea. Within 160 years of the trial it was a very universal idea in the west.

 

[ericc]

Actually, according to pretty much all modern astronomers the evidence he provided was perfectly adequate to ‘prove’ (in the scientific sense) the heliocentric model over the geocentric one.

The fig-leaf Catholic die-hards stick to is the lack of observable stellar paralax, but this is a non-starter as Galileo himself had pointed out that this was perfectly explainable if one assumed that the stars were incredibly far away - as we now know to be the case.

You are looking at it with hind sight using today’s modern astronomers lens. The fact is he could not prove his case based on knowledge as at that time. Do you have evidence that he has demonstrated adequate proof? The proof is not satisfying oneself but your peers/opponents.

And even if you (or the Pope) were unconvinced by his evidence, so what? Doesn’t he have the right to express his opinion?

You can express your opinion but not taught as fact when it has not been established as such at that time based on knowledge in existence then. He was told he could speak "hypothetically, and not absolutely."I think by today’s standard, that still holds. And instead he went to the public to broadcast his theory rather than through the academic route. I know some scientists today may choose this route too but I think the respectable and professional way is through the academic way though journals and similar publications.

Was the Pope, after all, not vigorously expressing his opinion that the sun went around the earth, as a fact, with vastly less evidence?

It was common knowledge that visually the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and accepted by the scientific community at that time. The Pope is after all expressing the knowledge of the times. And that knowledge is also expressed by the majority.

And even then, even if the Pope had had as much evidence as Galileo, Galileo only wanted the right to express his opinion. The Pope wanted to both express his opinion, and prevent Galileo from expressing his, and to force Galileo to publically espouse the geocentric model.

You are being repetitive.

Under threat of torture. A sick old man. And you defend this??

No I don’t support torture. What makes you think I do? Apparently nice gentlemanly ways don’t work with people who don’t live up to their agreement. Who don’t use threats? Don’t be naive. The scientific community is a prime example of threat using. But of course, threats remain as bluff most times and don’t result in realisation.

Yep. He had the right to be wrong, as well as the right to be right. That is how science (and freedom of speech and freedom of religion) work.

You are imposing today’s version of freedom of speech/religion onto yesterday in some medieval country. That doesn’t help your case in any way. How much freedom of speech did one had anyway during those times? Which countries are democratic and have a Bill of Rights in those medieval times? None. So stop using modern sense of rights and freedom of speech to argue your case. Your sense of outrageousness has been misplaced in the wrong century.

Anyway, the Galileo case is really not an anti-science stance by the Church. One example does not make it so. Your agenda of promoting the false image that the Church was anti-science is not credible and grossly inaccurate. Please do some history background check and see for yourself how the Church has been pro-knowledge all the while rather than cherry picking exceptions here and there. Sure, some church folks involved in the Galileo case erred. And for that the Pope (can’t remember which Pope) has publicly apologised. So I am not sure which part against the Church that you are so bitter about. If you have an axe to grind, then don’t hide behind Galileo’s skirt and come out in the open with your issues (and not Galileo).

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12505003:

Stephen168;12503109:

DrTaffy;12503000:

Stephen168;12502222:

DrTaffy;12501824:

The relative merit of the heliocentric versus the geocentric cosmological models is indisputably a scientific

question.

Which was not the subject of the inquisition; heresy was.

The subject of the Inquisition was Galileo’s support of heliocentrism and whether or not that support was heretical.

True.

Then why did you deny it?

As I said, the subject of the inquisition was heresy. While you seem to agree, you don’t seem to know what heresy is.

You denied that the subject of the Inquisition was heliocentrism. Then you agreed that it was. Now you are back to, if not flatly saying that it was not heliocentrism, then at least saying that ‘the subject of the inquisition was heresy’ as though that precludes it being about heliocentrism.

So please stop flip-flopping to avoid the question. Do you actually realise that the point of dissent was heliocentrism versus geocentrism? Whether or not you slap the label of ‘heresy’ on either point of view is irrelevant.

While the subject of the inquisition was not science, heliocentrism was not a proven fact at the the time of the trial. Galileo had nothing more than you have; a claim with no scientific support.

A) No. Galileo had extensive evidence to support heliocentrism, the court apparently did not even look at that evidence, and as pointed out before there was zero evidence to support geocentrism and knock-down evidence against and yet the church was not only stating that as fact, but trying to force Galileo to ‘believe’ it.
B) One should have the right to hold opinions and express them, without absolute proof. If you don’t accept this, then at least apply it to your own beliefs as well as those of others!

The seekers of truth, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew, had no desire to change their biblical exegesis, or their view of the heavens based on one guys unsubstantiated claim.

Noone said they had to. Noone was threatening them with torture if they failed to publicly espouse heliocentrism, or even if they continued to say that the sun went around the earth, or that the earth was flat, 6000 years old and carried on the back of a giant turtle.

weller2;12502717:

Which brings us to the following question: Can a statement be both true and heretical?

Seems like you’re asking if a thing can be a chair and red at the same time.

There is no contradiction in a red chair. You are still frantically avoiding the question of whether you see any contradiction in a fact that is true but heretical.

You don’t have an understanding of heresy and you seem to imply that truth and heresy are synonymous, so I’m asking you to define your terms so I can answer your question.

You introduced the term into the argument, not I. Use any sensible definition you want, indeed at this point I beg you to define what you mean by ‘heretical’, but please finally answer the question: can a statement be both true and heretical?