The Truth about the Gallileo affair - by an Atheist

[Linusthe2nd]

Then why not respond at least to the ones we had not covered?

I can’t think of any I didn’t answer that required an answer. Certain questions were asked here and there which did not deserve an answer because they were not to the point - in my opinion…

I am pretty certain that you have not explained why you feel that the Church should get the credit if a local parish group runs a soup kitchen, but not get the blame when the Pope, cardinals and Inquisition persecuted Galileo.

It is Christ working through the Church who inspires Catholics to good works, it is a part of the Church’s " Social Doctrine, " do good and avoid evil, it is carrying out the Sermon on the Mount. On the other hand practices such as the unjust practices of some elements of the Inquisition were inspired by the evil one convincing men that they could play God by resorting to evil to accomplish good. It is a question as deep as the current question on Galileo…

It is God who inspires us to do good, but he does not lead us to evil. And it is God who works through the Church. But at the same time the evil one is always working on the members of the Church ( and all people ) to do evil - and that is what the public concentrates on. When we, as individuals fail, it is the Church who is blamed. The world fails to notice what Christ taught, that none of us, in this life, is safe from temptation and sin - no matter what Church we belong to. So why belong to a Church? Because if we don’t and if we don’t get in the right one, it will make salvation very difficult. There is nothing magical about the Church, but it is the only source of Truth and Grace we have.

That really doesn’t answer the question. It may explain why you felt that way, but not what other interpretation could be put on your words.

No matter, I was just curious and it is not worth pursuing. So, carefully qualified apology accepted without the condition.

I tried to answer honestly.

If you cannot document the allegation, should you not retract it by your own standards?

No because I showed that, given the emphasis by some companies who were supplying lesson plans and audio-visual material, such things were taking place in the classroom. Besides such complaints have been present in Catholic circles for some time - I just didn’t happen to document them. Then there are the comments of Catholic bishops, priests, and students regarding the shoddy treatment the Church gets in the classrooms, even in the West. Is one to suppose that hay is not made of the Galileo affair? And it is certainly a popular subject on the lecture circuit and in popularized science books and periodicals. It is a natural conclusion that the affair would be similarly covered in classrooms…

Linus2nd

 

[weller2]

Are you claiming Galileo proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around?

I’m not claiming that he proved anything (for now).

I’m asking:

(1) In 1634, was Earth going around the Sun? Yes or no.

(2) If the answer is yes, is it true that (again in 1634) heliocentrism was a heresy? Yes or No.

(3) If the answer is yes, can you explain how a statement ((1), but it applies to any statement in general) can be both true in a physical framework and false in a faith framework?

(4) How do you reconcile the contradiction (3) with the fact that the Catholic Church claims that it is a sole holder of a divinely revealed truth?

 

[weller2]

And please answer these:

Can you provide an explanations why exactly these observations were necessary to validate Kepler’s model?

If stellar parallax is the only good proof of Earth’s motion, why did the Church remove prohibition on geocentrism 16 years before the proof was presented?

 

[Stephen168]

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, … Galileo was teaching the Copernican model and mocking the Church for believing the Ptolemaic model.

Galileo’s book compared two models of a possible four. By refuting one model, Galileo did not prove the other (false dilemma). There was one more model that he needed to refute, which he never did. And he never proved Copernicanism or heliocentrism. The Church knew this. See Post 238

As I tried to show in post #288, it seems like I’m having to to repeat myself. I’m not really interesting in that or tangents from the subject of the OP; the five myths of the Galileo Affair.

Are you claiming Galileo proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around?

I’m not claiming that he proved anything (for now).

What did Galileo see that proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around?

 

[weller2]

What did Galileo see that proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around?

This is irrelevant.

Please provide direct answers to my questions.

 

[DrTaffy]

What did Galileo see that proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around?

What did the Pope see that proved that the sun went around the earth, and not the other way around?

After all, it was the Church forcing Galileo to renounce his sincerely held view under threat of torture, not the other way around.

For bonus points: which view turned out to be correct?

 

[Stephen168]

This is irrelevant.

It is very relevant to understanding the myths surrounding the Galileo affair.

What did Galileo see that proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around?

 

[Stephen168]

What did the Pope see that proved that the sun went around the earth, and not the other way around?

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12543406:

What did the Pope see that proved that the sun went around the earth, and not the other way around?

:ehh:

You do realise that the earth goes around the sun?

…don’t you? :frighten:

The question stands.

 

[Stephen168]

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).

-Ptolmey published Almagest in 150AD describing a geocentric model with planets and sun orbiting earth in perfectly circular eccentric orbits with epicycles.
-Copernicus published an outline of his astronomy in 1530 describing a heliocentric system with planets orbiting the sun in perfectly circular eccentric orbits with epicycles.
Copernicus published De revolutionibus in 1543 while on his death bed.
-Tycho Brahe published De mundi in 1588 describing a geoheliocentric model with planets orbiting the sun and the sun orbiting the earth.
-Johannes Kepler published Astronomia Nova in 1609 describing a heliocentric model with planets orbiting the sun in elliptical oribits.

In 1610, the phases of Venus were discovered which proved Venus rotated around the sun. This is consistent with Copernicus, Tyco Brahe, and Johannes Kepler. So the geocentric model of Ptolemy was proven false.

 

[Stephen168]

But this model is identical to the Copernican model due to relativity of motion – Tychoean model is Copernican model in Earth’s reference frame.

In the Copernican model the earth moves. In the Tychonian model the earth does not move.

While stellar parallax is a direct proof of Earth motion, it’s not like the non-observation of stellar parallax was fatal to Copernicanism.

First, the charge was addressed by Galileo himself in Dialogo, where he calculated that expected change in star’s position was so small, that it could not be measured (at the time).

Watching the sun rise and set. Watching the moon, stars, and planets move across the sky are observation which caused the ancients, including Aristotle and Ptolemy, to argue against heliocentrism and for geocentrism.
Claiming stellar parallax would be impossible to observe doesn’t change the fact that stellar parallax is the direct observable proof required to prove the earth moves. Galileo did not provide proof, he provided an excuse.

Second, even if I were to agree that Galileo failed to prove heliocentrism, a much more important fact is that he has definitely managed to disprove geocentrim. And he had a direct proof that geocentrism is wrong from the observation of phases of Venus, as the observed sequence of phases of Venus cannot be explained in a Ptolemaic system.

On top of that, he had a tentative proof from the observation of moons of Jupiter. This one was more philosphical in nature, but it does not make it less powerful. Aristotle (after Ptolemy) taught that everything rotates around Earth; yet, here are these four bodies which rotate around Jupiter. Even if it doesn’t disprove the theory, it is a major blow.

True, but the Tychonian model is not geocentric. The phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter are still possible in his model.

Another major challenge to Ptolemy came from Kepler. Nowadays, we know that planets simply move through vaccum. But neither Ptolemy nor Aristotle had the notion of vacuum, and they taught that planets (and stars) reside on transparent spheres and these spheres rotate. Of course, that immediately run into a problem how to explain the apparent retrograde motion of planets, which was known since Antiquity. The solution was that the planet is not really fixed to the sphere, but is moving on it in small circles, called epicycles. That said, epicycycles were kind of arcane knowledge shared only among the professionals.

Enter Kepler. Kepler decides to verify Copernicus’ model by comparing calculated position of planets versus observation. He gets a very good match, except for Mars; the planet’s position of is off by two arc minutes. He sets off to explain that, and finds that the planetary orbits are not circular, but elliptical. I don’t think Kepler believed in crystal spheres, but his discovery killed the notion for everyone who still did, simply because it is rather difficult to imagine a shape which, rotating around its center, would draw an ellipse.

While a good hypothesis, there was no visible proof of the Keplerian model being better than the Tychonian model. Ten years after the trial, Evangelista Torricelli proved there was a vacuum by making the first barometer, and the Church didn’t have a problem with it.

Puh-leeze. Observation of phases of Venus was

the definitive proof. Any intro to astronomy textbook will explain you why. Normally, I would suggest you an experiment involving a dark room, an orange, and a candle, but since you apparently prefer scholastic approach to experimental one, then please refer to authority of textbook authors.
Linusthe2nd;12466816:

The majority of scientists in the seventeenth century believed firmly in the Ptolemaic theory, and were convinced, and rightly, too, that Galileo had not brought forward a single proof for his views.

Untrue. Observations of Venus (1610).

Your opinion.

Not mine. This very issue is discussed at length during each and every introductory course in astronomy. Here are some example lecture notes:

The Phases of Venus

Venus goes through phases like the Moon
• Order of phases and change in diameter proved conclusively that Venus orbited the Sun.
• Ptolemaic theory predicted the opposite behavior.
Conclusion: The Sun was also a center of motion.
This itself did not prove the Copernican system (it was also consistent with the Tychonic system), but it was inconsistent with the prevailing Ptolemaic system.

Citing Tycho to prove that there was any “controvesy” among the professionals in 1633 is intellectually dishonest.

No, claiming that Tyco had been falsified before the trial is intellectually dishonest.

Claiming Galileo proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around is a myth.

 

[DrTaffy]

Watching the sun rise and set. Watching the moon, stars, and planets move across the sky are observation which caused the ancients, including Aristotle and Ptolemy, to argue against heliocentrism and for geocentrism.

And yet all these observations are perfectly compatible with heliocentrism. Apart from anything else, heliocentrism does actually turn out to be true!

Claiming stellar parallax would be impossible to observe doesn’t change the fact that stellar parallax is the direct observable proof required to prove the earth moves.

No, proving that stellar parallax not being observed is perfectly compatible with heliocentrism conclusively shows that it is not required to prove heliocentrism. Logic 101

Indeed it led Galileo to correctly conclude that the stars are a long long way away.

True, but the Tychonian model is not geocentric.

I agree, but you have rather shot yourself in the foot. If Galileo had reduced the number of credible models to three heliocentric ones (as you claim, although even the church at the time seemed to think the duel was between Copernican and Ptolemaic models) then he had proven heliocentrism. QED

Claiming Galileo proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around is a myth.

Ignoring the fact that the Pope had not proven that the sun went around the earth is dishonest.

 

[DrTaffy]

I am pretty certain that you have not explained why you feel that the Church should get the credit if a local parish group runs a soup kitchen, but not get the blame when the Pope, cardinals and Inquisition persecuted Galileo.

Fascinating theological theory but:
a) it is couched entirely in terms of your own faith system. If you want to explain to outsiders why the Church should not be blamed for events like the persecution of Galileo or the genocide of the cathars, you need to do so in terms that will make sense to them
b) we don’t apply this logic to any other case. If I go out, give some money to charity, then rob a bank, I will not successfully argue in court that I should not be blamed for the robbery but should instead be rewarded for the charity because God made me be charitable but ‘the evil one’ made me rob the bank.

So again, why should the Church get credit for charitable acts performed even by minor members, yet not accept the blame for evil done by its upper echelons?

 

[Stephen168]

And yet all these observations are perfectly compatible with heliocentrism.

See Post #320

No, proving that stellar parallax not being observed is perfectly compatible with heliocentrism conclusively shows that it is not required to prove heliocentrism. Logic 101

I agree, but you have rather shot yourself in the foot. If Galileo had reduced the number of credible models to three heliocentric ones (as you claim, although even the church at the time seemed to think the duel was between Copernican and Ptolemaic models) then he had proven heliocentrism. QED

Ignoring the fact that the Pope had not proven that the sun went around the earth is dishonest.

See Post #326

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Fascinating theological theory but:
a) it is couched entirely in terms of your own faith system. If you want to explain to outsiders why the Church should not be blamed for events like the persecution of Galileo or the genocide of the cathars, you need to do so in terms that will make sense to them
b) we don’t apply this logic to any other case. If I go out, give some money to charity, then rob a bank, I will not successfully argue in court that I should not be blamed for the robbery but should instead be rewarded for the charity because God made me be charitable but ‘the evil one’ made me rob the bank.

So again, why should the Church get credit for charitable acts performed even by minor members, yet not accept the blame for evil done by its upper echelons?

First you need to understand that the Church is comprised of the entire body of the baptized, including the Pope and all the clergy. And the entire body, the Church, cannot be held responsible for what a few do or did. Secondly, there has to be certainty that some moral evil, as opposed to poor or bad practical judgments and actions based on those judgments, has been done.

And I will point out that atheists, skeptics, agnostics, heretics, etc. have no intelligent philosophical or theological basis on which to make a moral judgment of any kind. Because if the God of Christianity does not exist, there is no ground for any system of morality - as Hume said, as many after him have said, anything is O.K.

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

See Post #320

So, no anwer…

…and no answer…

…and no answer…

See Post #326

…and no answer. Yeah, I think we are done here.

 

[DrTaffy]

First you need to understand that the Church is comprised of the entire body of the baptized, including the Pope and all the clergy. And the entire body, the Church, cannot be held responsible for what a few do or did.

If they can claim credit for “what a few do or did” they can take the blame for “what a few do or did” surely?

Secondly, there has to be certainty that some moral evil, as opposed to poor or bad practical judgments and actions based on those judgments, has been done.

You mean, a moral evil such as threatening a sick old man with torture and forcing him to renounce his sincerely held belief which we now know to be true? :ehh:

And I will point out that atheists, skeptics, agnostics, heretics, etc. have no intelligent philosophical or theological basis on which to make a moral judgment of any kind.

Just because you do not understand the philosophical basis does not mean that there is none. Any good library will have books on moral philosophy that develop a reasonable philosophy of morality with no recourse to divine authority whatsoever.

 

[Stephen168]

So, no anwer…

…and no answer…

…and no answer…

…and no answer. Yeah, I think we are done here.

Yes, I think you have demonstration an inability to reason, comprehend, and stay on topic, so I think we are.

But if you can think of any reason why any of the five myths listed in the OP are not myths, please jump in.

 

[DrTaffy]

Yes, I think you have demonstration an inability to reason, comprehend, and stay on topic, so I think we are.

… And you are resorting to personal abuse. I suggest that you review the rules of this forum.

 

[weller2]

In the Copernican model the earth moves. In the Tychonian model the earth does not move.

All motion is relative… Ironically, this fact has been established by Galileo.

Watching the sun rise and set. Watching the moon, stars, and planets move across the sky are observation which caused the ancients, including Aristotle and Ptolemy, to argue against heliocentrism and for geocentrism.

Ever heard of Aristarchus of Samos?

Claiming stellar parallax would be impossible to observe doesn’t change the fact that stellar parallax is the direct observable proof required to prove the earth moves. Galileo did not provide proof, he provided an excuse.

No – he proved that the proof is unobtainable (at the time) and cannot be required. Which, BTW, was obvious to any professional.

And, you still haven’t explained why the Catholic Church removed the ban on heliocentrism before stellar parallax was observed! Did the standards of proof suddenly change?

While a good hypothesis, there was no visible proof of the Keplerian model being better than the Tychonian model.

Yeah? Then please explain 8’ error in prediction of position of Mars under Tychonian model! Ironically, observed by Tycho himself.

No, claiming that Tyco had been falsified before the trial is intellectually dishonest.

Please provide a formulation of Kepler’s 2nd and 3rd laws in Tychonian system.

Please provide a proof that Tychonian system allowed for a better ephemeris calculation than Keplerian system.

And I’m still waiting for explanation why exactly verification of Keplerian model required waiting for some special event, and several years worth of verified ephemeris prediction was not enough.