The Truth about the Gallileo affair - by an Atheist

[Stephen168]

As you said stellar parallax is the direct proof the earth moves. You refuse to answer the question because nobody proved the earth moved because stellar parallax was not observed.

Which means Galileo never proved the earth moves.

No, it is true. Galileo was a Copernican (circular orbits like Brahe) not a Keplerian. Galileo never proved the earth moved.
In professional circles at the time of the trail, the Rudolphine Tables had just started to be taken seriously. The Prutenic tables based on Copernicus never got off the ground. Over the three decades after their publication in 1627, the Rudolphine Tables began to predict events more accurately, so slowly replaced the Alfonsine tables. The Rudolphine Tables were based in Tycho’s data. While Kepler’s hypothesis were part of the Rudolphine Table, it was Isaac Newton (1687) who gave Kepler’s hypothesis a real boost. While you like to bring us Kepler’s Laws, they didn’t mean much until Newton, over 50 years after the trial.
In the meantime stellar parallax was never observed. Galileo never proved the earth moved.

 

[DrTaffy]

Guy Fawkes, a Catholic, was tortured and killed for attempted murder.

An attempted act of treason, mass murder and terrorism. Compared to the Catholic tradition at that time of torturing and burning people at the stake just for disagreeing with Catholic doctrine. :ehh:

Did England torture and kill? Did King James do it?

Yes. But we do not any more.

We don’t torture and kill people for attempted murder anymore,

You need to get out more. The USA still has the death penalty, which is being sought in (for example) the case of the Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and the headlines today are all about the USA’s use of torture against terrorists such as Guy Fawkes.

so can we claim that England was unjust in what they did to Guy Fawkes?

Only by being hypocrites.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

An attempted act of treason, mass murder and terrorism. Compared to the Catholic tradition at that time of torturing and burning people at the stake just for disagreeing with Catholic doctrine. :ehh:

Now waite a minute! Aren’t you forgetting the British Martyrs en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation and these are just the recognized ones. So be careful about throwing stones.

Yes. But we do not any more.

Wonderful, neither do we .

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, of course we do, especially if the ‘highly placed individuals’ consist of the head of state, his ministers, the judiciary and the police force all acting in concert.

I can’t remember any recent examples. But I am merely posing the injustice of such judgments. They are illogical because the ’ state ’ is comprised of multitudes of well meaning people, at least in most cases…

We certainly don’t say that the state should get the credit for running a healthcare system but not the blame for rounding up and persecuting some convenient minority. We do both - congratulations on the NHS but please stop incarcerating all the black people just for being black. No?:ehh:

So who is being persecuted? Who is incarcerating people for being black? Jim Crow days are over. You are just evading the question.

Indeed your whole apologia seems more than a little reminiscent of the concept of indulgences - i.e. that the Church should be allowed to get away with some horribly immoral things if it ‘makes up for it’ by charitable acts elsewhere!

And your remark here is unjust. The ’ Church ’ is doing nothing immoral. By definition, it cannot. Only individuals commit immoral acts.

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

Now waite a minute! Aren’t you forgetting the British Martyrs en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation and these are just the recognized ones. So be careful about throwing stones.

How am I forgetting them? Does anything about them change the fact that Fawkes was accused of far more than just attempted murder, or that Catholics did as much to people accused of far less than attempted murder?

I am certainly not justifying the Protestant attacks on Catholics, but it seems hypocritical for Catholics to complain about them without addressing the fact that they did as much themselves first.

Wonderful, neither do we .

It is unclear who the ‘we’ in that phrase refers to, but as I pointed out the USA, which appears to be Stephen’s country, still has the death penalty and is currently answering accusations of torture.

I can’t remember any recent examples. But I am merely posing the injustice of such judgments. They are illogical because the ’ state ’ is comprised of multitudes of well meaning people, at least in most cases.

If they cannot be held accountable for immoral acts, how can they be credited for charitable ones? In both cases individuals actually carry out any actual act, and in the Galileo case those ‘individuals’ were the Pope, Cardinals, and the Inquisition.

So who is being persecuted? Who is incarcerating people for being black? Jim Crow days are over. You are just evading the question.

What question? And seriously, you want an example of a government persecuting a minority? You claim that this never happens and that you need proof otherwise?:ehh:

And your remark here is unjust. The ’ Church ’ is doing nothing immoral. By definition, it cannot. Only individuals commit immoral acts.

Then how can groups such as the Church commit meritorious acts? This is the apparent contradiction, you want claim credit for the Church for charitable acts, while denying the blame for immoral ones.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

How am I forgetting them? Does anything about them change the fact that Fawkes was accused of far more than just attempted murder, or that Catholics did as much to people accused of far less than attempted murder?

I am not arguing about Fawkes.

I am certainly not justifying the Protestant attacks on Catholics, but it seems hypocritical for Catholics to complain about them without addressing the fact that they did as much themselves first

I don’t know who did what first, that wasn’t the point.

It is unclear who the ‘we’ in that phrase refers to, but as I pointed out the USA, which appears to be Stephen’s country, still has the death penalty and is currently answering accusations of torture.

Obviously one can point to certain governments in history which were totally corrupt. In fact you could not be in them unless you had sold your soul to their wicked purposes. But I hope you aren’t suggesting that the U.S. or even Britain falls into that category. And if you insist on ’ ticking ’ off the sins of various government departments, I dare say hardly any government would fair very well - by your standard.

If they cannot be held accountable for immoral acts, how can they be credited for charitable ones? In both cases individuals actually carry out any actual act, and in the Galileo case those ‘individuals’ were the Pope, Cardinals, and the Inquisition.

I have never defended Galileo’s trial, nor the Inquisition. I have only said that apologies were not needed and fruitless, which has proven to be the case. As far as the individuals involved, it is not for me to judge, I didn’t live in those times which obviously were driven by factors I haven’t experienced. Times were more brutal then, there was fear of civil unrest, etc. As far as the Galileo case is concerned, the Pope never took a direct hand.

What question? And seriously, you want an example of a government persecuting a minority? You claim that this never happens and that you need proof otherwise?:ehh:

You mentioned persecution of blacks and I asked you where this was taking place. It certainly isn’t taking place in the U.S.

Then how can groups such as the Church commit meritorious acts? This is the apparent contradiction, you want claim credit for the Church for charitable acts, while denying the blame for immoral ones.

Catholics believe that the Church was founded by Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit. We believe that the Church is the body of Christ active in the world through the action of the Holy Spirit. Therefore the Church, the body of Christ, is good by definition. And the good that its active members do, is done under the inspiration and by the grace of the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit of God is good, it is not evil. Therefore, the evil that individual members of the Church do, is done through the influence of Satan. And the Church can hardly be blamed for that. There is nothing magical about being a Catholic. Each of us is more or less tempted to evil all our lives, and it is only through the grace of the Holy Spirit acting through the Church and touching us individually that we manage to do anything good. If we do not respond the Church cannot be blamed, it is we who are at fault.

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

I am not arguing about Fawkes.

Umm, yes you are. You may not have intended to, but you intervened in a discussion about Fawkes to raise the apparently irrelevant detail of British Catholic Martyrs.

How do they change the fact that:
He was accused of attempted mass murder, not just a single murder
That murder was also treason
He was also a terrorist
Catholics had done far worse for far less reason, making the criticism more than a little hypocrytical
How does any of this change whether or not groups of individuals such as churches or companies can be held liable for ill-doing?

I don’t know who did what first, that wasn’t the point.

It is directly relevant and trivial to ascertain.

Obviously one can point to certain governments in history which were totally corrupt.

Well, make up your mind. One moment groups cannot be held liable for wrongdoing, but can claim credit for good deeds, the next you are claiming that they can be considered “totally corrupt”!

As far as the Galileo case is concerned, the Pope never took a direct hand.

We’ve been here before. Read a history book.

You mentioned persecution of blacks and I asked you where this was taking place. It certainly isn’t taking place in the U.S.

It is a hypothetical case - if a government were persecuting blacks, as has happened, how do you argue that they are not to blame but should still get credit for any good deeds they do??

Therefore the Church, the body of Christ, is good by definition.

And how do you square that with torture and executions? Blank denial?

 

[Stephen168]

Another aspect of the case is that it was a clash of modern science based on experiment, with scolastic science, based on careful analysis of the works of ancient philosphers. Initially, Galileo himself naively believed that the Inquisitors were genuinely interested in truch, and they could be convinced by presenting them with objective evidence. the fact that they weren’t interested in it was a major blow to him, as he wrote to Kepler
Galileo:

My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Umm, yes you are. You may not have intended to, but you intervened in a discussion about Fawkes to raise the apparently irrelevant detail of British Catholic Martyrs.

How do they change the fact that:
He was accused of attempted mass murder, not just a single murder
That murder was also treason
He was also a terrorist
Catholics had done far worse for far less reason, making the criticism more than a little hypocrytical
How does any of this change whether or not groups of individuals such as churches or companies can be held liable for ill-doing?

It is directly relevant and trivial to ascertain.

Well, make up your mind. One moment groups cannot be held liable for wrongdoing, but can claim credit for good deeds, the next you are claiming that they can be considered “totally corrupt”!

We’ve been here before. Read a history book.

It is a hypothetical case - if a government were persecuting blacks, as has happened, how do you argue that they are not to blame but should still get credit for any good deeds they do??

And how do you square that with torture and executions? Blank denial?

So you won’t feel neglected I will just say that I have given all my opinions on these points and can do no more. I mean there is no point in just repeating the same things.

Linus2nd

 

[Stephen168]

Guy Fawkes, a Catholic, was tortured and killed for attempted murder. Did England torture and kill? Did King James do it?

Yes. But we do not any more.

We don’t torture and kill people for attempted murder anymore, so can we claim that England was unjust in what they did to Guy Fawkes?

Only by being hypocrites.

Should England be a little embarrassed about its treatment of Guy Fawkes or hold an annual celebration to remember it by?

.

History can be interesting, complicated, and full of myths, e.,g. Guy Fawkes was the main plotter.

 

[weller2]

Stephen168:
Yes, that pretty much summarizes my view of the case.

What’s your point?

 

[weller2]

Galileo never proved the earth moved.

And did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth DOESN’T move?

The evidence available back in 1633 was enough to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case.

This was a criminal trial, and the basic evidence standard for a criminal trial was never met.

Political show trial. Kangaroo court.

 

[Stephen168]

weller2;12458886:

Another aspect of the case is that it was a clash of modern science based on experiment, with scolastic science, based on careful analysis of the works of ancient philosphers.** Initially, Galileo himself naively believed that the Inquisitors were genuinely interested in truch, and they could be convinced by presenting them with objective evidence. the fact that they weren’t interested in it was a major blow to him, as he wrote to Kepler**

"Galileo:

My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?

Yes, that pretty much summarizes my view of the case.

What’s your point?

You suggested that Galileo was referring to the Church, the Inquisition, at the time of the trial. He was actually referring to college professors at the time he developed his telescope; 23 years before the trial.

So your view on the case is false.

 

[Stephen168]

You listed five myths of the Galileo affair which could be the foundation of an interesting discussion, but if someone can’t at least admit to the clear myths of history there is no foundation on which to go forward.** When I say ‘admit,’ I mean directly attempt to refute them or admit they are myths. Any other discussion is an excuse to beat up the Church.**

While it is interesting to expose their prejudices, I see no benefit in having a discussion with someone who can’t first admit the myths. I think you might be wasting your time, but its just me.
weller2;12556984:

Well, before discussing myths, we should first settle the facts of the case.
And speaking of facts, you are still refusing to answer the fundamental question:
Was Earth circling around the Sun in 1633, or not?

No, we are discussing myths. The fives myths listed in the OP is the subject of this thread.
Myth #1 "Galileo proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around.”
You seem to be joining the other two in choosing to beat up the church because you can’t refute the fact that they are myths.

And did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth DOESN’T move?

Again, this has nothing to do with refuting the myth.

 

[Stephen168]

The evidence available back in 1633 was enough to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case.

This was a criminal trial, and the basic evidence standard for a criminal trial was never met.

Political show trial. Kangaroo court.

Yet, you have not been able to prove your claim.
While Galileo ignored the Tychonic model, you want to believe Kepler refuted it. Kepler was not believed by the professionals of his day, not even Galileo believed him. The Tychonic model was still in play by the professionals at the time of the trial.
The required proof, by astronomers since antiquity, that the earth moved is stellar parallax. Stellar parallax was first observed over 200 years after the trial.

 

[DrTaffy]

Stephen168;12556622:

We don’t torture and kill people for attempted murder anymore, so can we claim that England was unjust in what they did to Guy Fawkes?

But you, the United States, do still torture and kill those accused of terrorism. And you, Catholics, tortured and killed for far less at the time. So I really don’t see how you think you have a leg to stand on.

Note, I am not condoning torture or the death penalty, but taken in context I don’t think we need feel ashamed compared to other cultures at the time.

Stephen168;12556622:

Should England be a little embarrassed about its treatment of Guy Fawkes or hold an annual celebration to remember it by?

.

Now that is flatly dishonest selective misquoting of my posts.

But since you insist on this, why should England be ashamed of celebrating successfully foiling a terrorist plot? Just because the terrorist was Catholic does not change the fact that terrorism and murder are morally foul.

History can be interesting, complicated, and full of myths, e.,g. Guy Fawkes was the main plotter.

Other than you, who here has asserted this?

 

[Stephen168]

We don’t torture and kill people for attempted murder anymore, so can we claim that England was unjust in what they did to Guy Fawkes?

Note, I am not condoning torture or the death penalty, but taken in context I don’t think we need feel ashamed compared to other cultures at the time.

Only by being hypocrites.

See post #354

 

[DrTaffy]

See post #354

…aand you are back to personal abuse.

Also, still no answer to my questions. Huge shock all around.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“All the books and magazines that you sent me helped re-enforce my new-found Catholic beliefs. After reading them and praying, I now have no doubts about the Catholic faith and I am rejoicing in the truth. It is good to know the truth! God bless Catholic Answers!”

~ Sarah, New York, New York
The Galileo Controversy

---

" It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.

The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is not infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be.

This tract provides a brief explanation of what really happened to Galileo. "

catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

A work found in Catholic Answers " Tracts "

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

This link supports the arguments of Tim O’Neill referenced and linked in the O.P.

quora.com/What-is-the-mos…event?

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

More insight and truth regarding the Galileo affair.

" What happened at Galileo’s trial?
Galileo’s trial did not take place before 10 cardinals as is often depicted. Participants were Galileo, two officials, and a secretary. (The 10 cardinals reviewed the testimony to render judgment.) Galileo’s defense was that he had understood from Cardinal Bellarmine that he had not been condemned in 1616 and that the Dialogue did not support the Copernican theory as fact. His first defense was probable. He was certainly not aware of a more restrictive notice in the 1616 file specifically targeting him, which was revealed at the 1633 trial. His other defense, however, does not stand much scrutiny. The Dialogue was clearly a defense of the Copernican hypothesis as truth.

Seven of the 10 tribunal cardinals signed a condemnation of Galileo (the other three never signed it). The condemnation found Galileo “vehemently suspected of heresy” in teaching as truth that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world. He was found guilty in persisting in such teaching when he had been formally warned not to do so in 1616. His book was prohibited, he was ordered confined to formal imprisonment, to publicly renounce his beliefs, and to perform proper penance. "

catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-anti-catholic%E2%80%99s-trump-card

From " Tracts " at Catholic Answers, Robert P. Lockwood, director of communications for the Diocese of Pittsburgh, is the author of A Faith for Grown-Ups: A Midlife Conversation about What Really Matters (Loyola Press).
…