The Truth about the Gallileo affair - by an Atheist

[Stephen168]

It does not matter, because Kepler did. 7 years before the first injunction(!).

Again: the court did not bother to investigate observational evidence

Why should we care?

The Inquisition, Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, is a part of the Catholic Church whose aim is to combat heresy. It started in the 12th century.

Heresy is the teaching of something contrary to the teaching of the Church and was a capital offense.

The trinity is not a scientific fact but it is a Christian belief and people, including Michael Servetus, were given the ultimate punishment for teaching against it.

So a heresy has nothing to do with the science of a belief and the purpose of the inquisition is not to discover scientific facts.

Catholic biblical exegesis was consistent with the Ptolemaic and the Tychonic models. Galileo held and taught the Copernican model. Believing in the Copernican model could led people to heretical belief, so the Church told Galileo to stop teaching Copernicus as a fact until he could prove it was a fact.

In 1609, there were four models on the table; Ptolemaic, Coperican, Tychonic, and Kerplerian.

By the time Galileo wrote his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, in 1632, the Church knew that the Ptolemaic model was not a fact because of the observed phases of Venus, and it knew the Tychonic model was more accurate than the Copernican model. Galileo was teaching the Copernican model and mocking the Church for believing the Ptolemaic model. So basically Galileo was beating the Church with a straw man.

Exact prediction of Mars orbit, which is impossible under any other model.

One way in which the Tychonic model was superior to the Copernican Model was the accuracy in which it predicted the location of Mars. Every 32 years for a few weeks, Mars was way off where it was expected to be, using Ptolemy and Copernicus. Tycho proved his theory in his observation of Mars in 1593. Kepler, using Tyco’s data, developed a model of elliptic movement of the planets around the sun. In 1625, he observed the location of Mars and found his model to be more accurate than Tycho in predicting the location of Mars, in the 32 year cycle. Because Tyco and Kepler used very special instruments to make their measurements, most people didn’t see any real difference between the Typhonic model and the Keplerian model except for this 32 year event. The next chance scientists would have to verify Kepler would be 1657; 25 years after the trial.

By the 1660’s, the Tychonic model had lost most of its support.

 

[inocente]

I know there are some posts I’ve not replied to, but ran out of time yet again, maybe tomorrow, sorry.

 

[weller2]

So a heresy has nothing to do with the science of a belief and the purpose of the inquisition is not to discover scientific facts.

Too bad, because Inquisition did, in fact, make a scientific statement:

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is …] absurd and false …]

Catholic biblical exegesis was consistent with the Ptolemaic and the Tychonic models. Galileo held and taught the Copernican model. Believing in the Copernican model could led people to heretical belief, so the Church told Galileo to stop teaching Copernicus as a fact until he could prove it was a fact.

The 1633 sentence constains nothing like the underlined part. It simply pronounces heliocentrism to be heretical ex cathedra.

Galileo was teaching the Copernican model and mocking the Church for believing the Ptolemaic model. So basically Galileo was beating the Church with a straw man.

Yet, he was not prosecuted for lese majeste, but for heresy!

One way in which the Tychonic model was superior to the Copernican Model was the accuracy in which it predicted the location of Mars. …]

Interesting. Source please.

 

[weller2]

You are claiming that heresy and heliocentrism are the same thing

Not me, the Inquisition:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

 

[Stephen168]

The Inquisition, Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, is a part of the Catholic Church whose aim is to combat heresy. It started in the 12th century.

Heresy is the teaching of something contrary to the teaching of the Church and was a capital offense.
The trinity is not a scientific fact but it is a Christian belief and people, including Michael Servetus, were given the ultimate punishment for teaching against it.

Yes, the inquisition would make statements about the specific heresy the accused is engaged in.

Catholic biblical exegesis was consistent with the Ptolemaic and the Tychonic models. Galileo held and taught the Copernican model. Believing in the Copernican model could led people to heretical belief, so the Church told Galileo to stop teaching Copernicus as a fact until he could prove it was a fact.
weller2;12518388:

The 1633 sentence constains nothing like the underlined part. It simply pronounces heliocentrism to be heretical ex cathedra.

See Post #218.

In 1609, there were four models on the table; Ptolemaic, Coperican, Tychonic, and Kerplerian.

By the time Galileo wrote his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, in 1632, the Church knew that the Ptolemaic model was not a fact because of the observed phases of Venus, and it knew the Tychonic model was more accurate than the Copernican model. Galileo was teaching the Copernican model and mocking the Church for believing the Ptolemaic model. So basically Galileo was beating the Church with a straw man.
weller2;12518388:

Yet, he was not prosecuted for lese majeste, but for heresy!

Yes, heresy. Lese majeste? No, poor reasoning. The same false dilemma, and straw man contained in the myths of the Galileo affair.

 

[Stephen168]

Not me, the Inquisition:

Yes, you. See Post #242

 

[weller2]

See Post #218.

The internet blogger also quoted Cardinal Bellarmine because as Cardinal Poupard said and the Pope affirmed, Cardinal Bellermine articulated the Church position at the time of the trial.

Cardinal Bellermine articulated his private opinion; the 1633 sentence and the subsequent actions of the Congregation of Index were the official position.

Plus, the view that Bellarmine was open to the idea that Earth moves is based on quoting him out of context. Here is the whole passage:

I say that when it shall be really demonstrated that the sun is in the
centre of the universe, and that the earth is in the third heaven, and that
the sun does not go round the earth, but that the earth goes round the sun,
then it will be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the
passages of Scripture that seem to be contradicted, and we must rather say
that we do not know what they mean, than say that what has been
demonstrated to be true is false. But until it has been shown me, I will not
believe in the existence of such a demonstration; for it is by no means the
same thing to demonstrate that, granting the sun to be in the centre, and
the earth in the third heaven, things would appear as they do now, and to
demonstrate that the sun is really in the centre, and the earth in the heaven.
The first point I can believe might be demonstrated, but I have the greatest
doubt as to the possibility of demonstrating the second; and in a case of
doubt we ought not to have the interpretation of Scripture given by the
holy Fathers. I add this consideration,—He who wrote, ‘The sun ariseth.
and setteth, and returneth to his place,’ was Solomon, a man who was not
only an inspired writer, but one who was divinely endowed beyond all
other men with very great wisdom, and learning, and knowledge of the
works of nature. It is not likely that he would say anything opposed to
what would, or could be proved to be the truth. And if I am told that
Solomon is speaking of things as they appear to us, since it seems to us
that the sun moves, although it is really the earth that moves, just as when
a person leaves the shore, the shore seems to leave the ship; I shall reply
that, although to a person leaving the shore it appears as though the shore
left him, he is well aware that the case is otherwise, and corrects his
erroneous impression by observing that the ship is really in motion, and
not the shore; but with regard to the sun and the earth, no one is aware that
he has need to correct the error, for all know clearly from experience that
the earth stands firm, and that we are not deceived by the eye when we
judge that the sun moves, as also that we are not deceived when we judge
that the moon and the stars move. And let this suffice for the present.

Robert’s commentary:

The writer of this letter holds, (1) that the Copernican interpretation of
Scripture is implicitly forbidden by the Council of Trent; (2) that the
question at issue is on matter of faith; (3) that although, should it ever be
strictly demonstrated that the sun does not move, the fact must be
admitted, and Scripture will have to be explained in some way to meet it;
yet against the possibility of such a demonstration being found, we must
place the express assertion of an inspired writer profoundly versed in
natural science that the sun does move, an assertion which we cannot
reasonably doubt means that it really moves. The implication is
that the truth of Scripture is not compatible with the notion that the supposed
demonstration will ever be given.

From this book which explains it quite nicely (ironically, the author is advocating geocentrism).

 

[Stephen168]

Cardinal Bellermine articulated his private opinion; the 1633 sentence and the subsequent actions of the Congregation of Index were the official position.

Plus, the view that Bellarmine was open to the idea that Earth moves is based on quoting him out of context. Here is the whole passage:

I say that if it were really demonstrated that the sun is at the centre of the world and the earth is in the third heaven, and that it is not the sun which revolves round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great circumspection in the explanation of Scriptural texts which seem contrary to this assertion and to say that we do not understand them, rather than to say that what is demonstrated is false. But until it has been shown me, I will not believe in the existence of such a demonstration; for it is by no means the same thing to demonstrate that, granting the sun to be in the centre, and the earth in the third heaven, things would appear as they do now, and to demonstrate that the sun is really in the centre, and the earth in the heaven.
The first point I can believe might be demonstrated, but I have the greatest doubt as to the possibility of demonstrating the second; and in a case of doubt we ought not to have the interpretation of Scripture given by the holy Fathers. I add this consideration,—He who wrote, ‘The sun ariseth. and setteth, and returneth to his place,’ was Solomon, a man who was not only an inspired writer, but one who was divinely endowed beyond all other men with very great wisdom, and learning, and knowledge of the works of nature. It is not likely that he would say anything opposed to what would, or could be proved to be the truth. And if I am told that Solomon is speaking of things as they appear to us, since it seems to us that the sun moves, although it is really the earth that moves, just as when a person leaves the shore, the shore seems to leave the ship; I shall reply that, although to a person leaving the shore it appears as though the shore left him, he is well aware that the case is otherwise, and corrects his erroneous impression by observing that the ship is really in motion, and not the shore; but with regard to the sun and the earth, no one is aware that he has need to correct the error, for all know clearly from experience that the earth stands firm, and that we are not deceived by the eye when we judge that the sun moves, as also that we are not deceived when we judge that the moon and the stars move. And let this suffice for the present.

So you are claiming the bolded part is the private opinion of the Cardinal Inquisitor and the rest is the official position of the Catholic Church. I think not. The Church was willing to change its exegesis if heliocentrism could be proven. Catholic biblical exegesis was consistent with the Ptolemaic and the Tychonic models as indicated by the Cardinal Inquisitor above. Galileo held and taught the Copernican model but he could not prove it.
St. Augustine:

If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly. It is not the meaning of Scripture which is opposed to the truth, but the meaning which he has wanted to give to it. That which is opposed to Scripture is not what is in Scripture but what he has placed there himself, believing that this is what Scripture meant

Cardinal Baronius:

The Holy Ghost intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go

St. Augustine:

One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: I will send to you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and the moon. For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.

A “sentence” is written at the end of a trial not before it. It is written to reflect the charges of suspicion of heresy.

 

[weller2]

So you are claiming the bolded part is the private opinion of the Cardinal Inquisitor and the rest is the official position of the Catholic Church.

1. The official documents in the case are (a) the 1616 injuction, (b) the 1633 sentence and court proceedings (c) all subsequent promulgations of Index containing a blanket ban on heliocentrism until… 1835 (case-by-case exceptions starting in 1740 notwithstanding). None of these documents contain what you allege (i.e. that the doctrine will be revised once Earth’s motion can be scientifically demonstrated).
2. Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini is… Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini. This is not an official document by any means; it is merely an expression of Bellarmine’s opinion of the subject. Casting Bellarmine’s view as the Church’s view is equivalent to quoting Pope Francis’ private correspondence and saying that it is doctrine. (Seems to happen a lot recently.)
3. When the letter is read in its entirety, it becomes obvious that while Bellarmine acknowledged that demonstration of heliocentrism would require revision of exegesis, he was sceptical that such demonstration is even possible, inter alia because he believed that Earth’s immobility was devinely revealed to Salomon (and thus must be true!).

 

[weller2]

(i.e. that the doctrine will be revised once Earth’s motion can be scientifically demonstrated).

To elaborate on this point, while the doctrine indeed has been revised, it happened silently – basically, the prohibition on teaching heliocentrism has been dropped and not talked about.

There is no official document revising the classification of heliocentrism as heresy until JP2’s apology, and even that document falls short. In fact, most of the discussion around the case is not whether heliocentrism was considered heretical (because it clearly was), but whether papal degrees promulgating Index with condemnation of heliocentrism were infallible. Because if they were, then it leads to the situation where the Pope was, in a demonstrable way, infallibly wrong (Hans Kung). Case revision under JP2 basically aimed to demonstrate that the judgement was not infallible, despite the fact that (a) it was to be held by the faithful under disciplinary sanctions and (b) it was an ex cathedra statement on faith and morals.

This rather peculiar situation has caused some theologians (e.g. Robert Sungenis) to maintain that geocentrism is indeed part of the deposit of faith and must be held definitely by the faithful.

 

[weller2]

(double post)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Too bad, because Inquisition did, in fact, make a scientific statement:

The 1633 sentence constains nothing like the underlined part. It simply pronounces heliocentrism to be heretical ex cathedra.

Now that is not true. The judges did not from a teaching body. They could not actually teach anything. All they could do is give a prudential judgment, which is what they did. And that judgment was that Galileo was suspected of holding an heretical opinion. And on that basis he was sentenced.

Yet, he was not prosecuted for lese majeste, but for heresy!

Wrong. Suspicion of heresy. Only the Pope could condemn for heresy and he did not do so.

Linus2nd

Interesting. Source please.

 

[inocente]

The proof comes from the very definition of scientific proof.

A hypothesis is offered, the hypothesis will have charasitics predictions that are subject to empirical proof, the predictions are tested, when tested, the hypothesis is shown to have been proven.

Galileo (and Kepler) offered the first two, the hypothesis and certain predictions.

But neither one of them carried out the actual proof.

A more modern example is the Higgs Boson particle. Higgs did not ‘prove’ that the particle exists, he only offered the hypothesis and specific characteristics of what the particle would have.

The actual attempts to show proof are under way now.

Another example is the concept of universe expansion. Einstein showed that the universe was not in a steady state (static), that it was either expanding or contracting, but he did not know which. Lemaitre ( a Catholic priest by the way), came up with the theory of universe expansion, and show that if it was, it would have to have come from a single point, but did not ‘prove’ it.

It fell to Hubble to show that the universe was expanding, and the final proof if a distinct prediction of the ‘Big Bang’ came from the Bicep2 project just this year.

Galileo did many things, but no actual scientist or (any honest person) will claim that he proved heliocentrism. And even that got blown out of the water in the with the discovery that we are in the Milky Way, the Sun is not the center of the universe either

You, and a number of other posters, don’t appear to understand inductive reasoning.

Astronomy uses induction, and it is never possible to prove that kind of argument.

You guys seem to be confusing induction for deduction. In Europe, the difference is taught in high school, don’t know about elsewhere. Deduction works on proof, induction on disproof. All scientific hypotheses are inductive, their truth rests on evidence and is a matter of probability, not proof.

Complaining that Galileo never proved anything is to completely misunderstand basic reasoning. Which is exactly what the dilettante blogger linked in the OP does.

PS: You quoted me in your post but then never mentioned it and wrote about something completely different.

PPS: sorry it took so long to reply, I’m very busy.

 

[inocente]

Is it really your only problem?

Defense attorney: “Judge, the prosecution has brought no evidence whatsoever.”

Prosecution attorney: “Is it really your only problem?”

:whacky:

*You have cherry picked the OP, so lets look at the whole sentence:

“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.”*

You have a strange notion of cherry picking. The OP clearly says “lies that you still find repeated in high school and university texts”. Pretending it doesn’t because there are other words there too is bizarre.

*The internet blogger gave an accurate explanation on why it is a myth. While you cherry picked the OP to make his point seem to be more narrow than it was, you have done the same thing with the Cardinal, the Pope, and the Catholic Church.
Pope John Paul II explained in his talk, that you referenced, that “the geocentric representation of the world was commonly admitted in the culture of the time as fully agreeing with the teaching of the Bible” and “the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so.” “The majority of theologians did not recognize the formal distinction between Sacred Scripture and its interpretation, and this led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.”
Theologians are not the Church, and a ‘majority’ or ‘most’ is not all.
The Pope then reminds us what Cardinal Poupard said Cardinal Bellarmine wrote, “I say that if it were really demonstrated that the sun is at the centre of the world and the earth is in the third heaven, and that it is not the sun which revolves round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great circumspection in the explanation of Scriptural texts which seem contrary to this assertion and to say that we do not understand them, rather than to say that what is demonstrated is false.” and what St. Augustine wrote, ’If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly. It is not the meaning of Scripture which is opposed to the truth, but the meaning which he has wanted to give to it. That which is opposed to Scripture is not what is in Scripture but what he has placed there himself, believing that this is what Scripture meant’

The internet blogger also quoted Cardinal Bellarmine because as Cardinal Poupard said and the Pope affirmed, Cardinal Bellermine articulated the Church position at the time of the trial. The Church is willing to change its exegesis if heliocentrism can be proven. So it is a myth that heliocentrism was condemned because the Church believed the Bible had to be taken literally. As the internet blogger pointed out, biblical literalism is found in Protestantism, not Catholicism.

To answer your question, You don’t have to choose; they are both right.*

So you’re saying we should not believe the Church did wrong, that JPII apologized, and the matter is closed.

Instead you wish us to believe that the Church never takes responsibility for what is done in its name, and instead palms it off on scapegoats to carry the can, even though they did it in the name of the Church.

And that when JPII said “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture”, he was really referring to Protestants.

< sigh >

 

[inocente]

Not " huffing and puffing, " I am just stating that Catholics believe certain very definite things and though the whole world stand up and scream, we will continue to believe all that the Church teaches.

And it does not teach " prudential " opinions. And the world can make of that what it will.

I still don’t remember anyone saying anything about your faith or the faith of Catholics.

Most of my neighbors have a picture of a pope on the kitchen wall. Most often it’s JPII. I think only a tiny number of Catholics don’t accept the word of JPII on this matter.

But I think there are more Catholics than non-Catholics who don’t accept his word. Why this should be eludes me.

 

[Stephen168]

1. The official documents in the case are (a) the 1616 injuction, (b) the 1633 sentence and court proceedings (c) all subsequent promulgations of Index containing a blanket ban on heliocentrism until… 1835 (case-by-case exceptions starting in 1740 notwithstanding). None of these documents contain what you allege (i.e. that the doctrine will be revised once Earth’s motion can be scientifically demonstrated).
2. Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini is… Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini. This is not an official document by any means; it is merely an expression of Bellarmine’s opinion of the subject. Casting Bellarmine’s view as the Church’s view is equivalent to quoting Pope Francis’ private correspondence and saying that it is doctrine. (Seems to happen a lot recently.)
3. When the letter is read in its entirety, it becomes obvious that while Bellarmine acknowledged that demonstration of heliocentrism would require revision of exegesis, he was sceptical that such demonstration is even possible, inter alia because he believed that Earth’s immobility was devinely revealed to Salomon (and thus must be true!).

The Inquisition was run by people; the Cardinal Inquisitors. Cardinal Bellarmine was a Cardinal Inquisitor. Without much exaggeration one could claim Cardinal Bellarmine WAS the Inquisition. The Cardinal Inquisitor believed the Church was willing to change its exegesis if heliocentrism could be proven. What he believe was not unique to him, as I showed, and anyone who cares knows, the Catholic Church has never viewed the Holy Scripture to be a science book, and there are many senses in which to interpret scripture. Biblical literalism is a feature of Protestantism not Catholicism.

Father Foscarini published a work trying to reconcile Copernicus with the bible and he sent a copy to Cardinal Bellarmine as a Cardinal Inquisitor. The Cardinal’s letter was the response of the Inquisition. It would be like if someone sent Pope Francis a document and asking him how it sat with Church teaching. While Pope Francis’ return letter might be private it would also contain the current thinking of the Church.

The Tychonic model ‘saved the appearance’ as well as the other three models still on the table at the time of the trial. Tycho rejected a moving earth because there was no observed stellar parallax.

While Tycho and Cardinal Bellarmine may have doubts that a moving earth would ever be proven; stellar parallax was the proof required.

Catholic biblical exegesis was consistent with the Ptolemaic and the Tychonic models. Galileo held and taught the Copernican model but he could not prove it.

1582-the Church introduces the Gregorian calendar
1633-Trial of Galileo
1639 After correcting Kepler, Jeremiah Horrocks predicts and was the first to obverse a transit of venus across the sun.
1657 is the first chance to verify Kepler’s prediction of the location of Mars is better than Copernicus or Ptolemy.
1752-The British Empire adopts the Gregorian calendar
1758-The Catholic Church removes books relating to heliocentrism from the Index except De Revolutionibus and Dialogue Concerning two World Systems.
1822- The Church removes De Revolutionibus and Dialogue Concerning two World Systems from the Index
1838- Stellar parallax was first observed by Friedrich Bessel providing prove that the earth moves.

 

[Stephen168]

So you’re saying we should not believe the Church did wrong, that JPII apologized, and the matter is closed.

As I said before; the subject of this thread is the five myths and they are in fact myths.

 

[inocente]

Thank you, a nice rebuttle.

Yes, Inocente criticises the internet sources of teaching materials which give a biased account of the affair but refuses to recognize that if such a rendering was not being taught in schools these companies would have no market for their product, they wouldn’t be wasting good money producing the product if their wasn’t a good market. Admittedly this is not proof that the same bias is in textbooks, but it does prove that it is a bias that is taught in the classroom. And that is the key point - the bias is clearly being taught.

You’re not even provided evidence of any lies from reputable sources of education on the internet. Not from one. It would seem that even simply rephrasing JPII or the Pontifical Commission gets branded a lie in your book.

 

[inocente]

As I said before; the subject of this thread is the five myths and they are in fact myths.

The Church did wrong, JPII apologized, the world has moved on, and a tiny minority on the internet who think otherwise won’t change that.

 

[Stephen168]

The Church did wrong, JPII apologized, the world has moved on, and a tiny minority on the internet who think otherwise won’t change that.

And the myths persist.