The Truth about the Gallileo affair - by an Atheist

[The_DNA_Rose]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pax
Linus2nd

How do you define, the truth that you know?

 

[Stephen168]

How do you define, the truth that you know?

How do you define the truth Galileo knew or did he?

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

How do you define the truth Galileo knew or did he?

This thread is not about what I know.

Is it now?

 

[Stephen168]

This thread is not about what I know.

Is it now?

It is about what you know. What do you know about the five myths listed in the OP? And how do you know it?

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

It is about what you know. What do you know about the five myths listed in the OP? And how do you know it?

Well it would seem that in order to answer that, I would have to read what the atheist who wrote the first post wrote. I suppose I could do this, if I were in the mood to read comedy. However atheist are usually quite boring, and just end up revealing, that they are the greatest thing in history, and that they grew out of the mud.

Same old boring story, over and over.

 

[Stephen168]

Well it would seem that in order to answer that, I would have to read what the atheist who wrote the first post wrote. I suppose I could do this, if I were in the mood to read comedy. However atheist are usually quite boring, and just end up revealing, that they are the greatest thing in history, and that they grew out of the mud.

Same old boring story, over and over.

so you don’t know anything about the subject of the thread because you didn’t bother to read and understand it.
You ask others how they know but you don’t know.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

How do you define, the truth that you know?

In reference to what? Since you quoted the O.P. I assume it somehow refers to that, but I don’t understand in what way.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Stephen168]

In reference to what? Since you quoted the O.P. I assume it somehow refers to that, but I don’t understand in what way.

Pax
Linus2nd

She has already admitted to not reading the OP. She is just trying to hijack the thread.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well it would seem that in order to answer that, I would have to read what the atheist who wrote the first post wrote. I suppose I could do this, if I were in the mood to read comedy. However atheist are usually quite boring, and just end up revealing, that they are the greatest thing in history, and that they grew out of the mud.

Same old boring story, over and over.

I am not an atheist. I was quoting an atheist, Tim O’Neill. Since he is an atheist, I thought others might be persuaded to see his argument as more objective. Apparently I was wrong. So today I encluded other references from Catholic Answers " Tracts " which support what Tim said. None of these arguments are about who proved what when, rather they are explanations of the facts of the case as the men involved saw them.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

She has already admitted to not reading the OP. She is just trying to hijack the thread.

O.K., but I am still lost? I guess it doesn’t matter then.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

so you don’t know anything about the subject of the thread because you didn’t bother to read and understand it.
You ask others how they know but you don’t know.

Atheist are boring…God could arrive tomorrow, cure all disease, famine and hunger of heart, and the atheist motto would still not change. though they would probably say something like, where was he during the last war…

It never changes… So why read it again.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

O.K., but I am still lost? I guess it doesn’t matter then.

Pax
Linus2nd

Only the atheist is lost, as he has never been guided by anything except his own ignorance.

One night I dreamed a dream.
As I was walking along the beach with my Lord.
Across the dark sky flashed scenes from my life.
For each scene, I noticed two sets of footprints in the sand,
One belonging to me and one to my Lord.

After the last scene of my life flashed before me,
I looked back at the footprints in the sand.
I noticed that at many times along the path of my life,
especially at the very lowest and saddest times,
there was only one set of footprints.

This really troubled me, so I asked the Lord about it.
“Lord, you said once I decided to follow you,
You’d walk with me all the way.
But I noticed that during the saddest and most troublesome times of my life,
there was only one set of footprints.
I don’t understand why, when I needed You the most, You would leave me.”

He whispered, “My precious child, I love you and will never leave you
Never, ever, during your trials and testings.
When you saw only one set of footprints,
It was then that I carried you.”

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

I am not an atheist. I was quoting an atheist, Tim O’Neill. Since he is an atheist, I thought others might be persuaded to see his argument as more objective. Apparently I was wrong. So today I encluded other references from Catholic Answers " Tracts " which support what Tim said. None of these arguments are about who proved what when, rather they are explanations of the facts of the case as the men involved saw them.

Pax
Linus2nd

Then if the post was written by an atheist, everything I said stands. Now that said, by not reading the words of emptiness, I do not challenge the words existence, but I can not be made to waste my time reading them. The atheist will accept this.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Then if the post was written by an atheist, everything I said stands. Now that said, by not reading the words of emptiness, I do not challenge the words existence, but I can not be made to waste my time reading them. The atheist will accept this.

I guess I just don’t see what you are objecting to. If you aren’t interested in the issue, then why bother posting?

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

I guess I just don’t see what you are objecting to. If you aren’t interested in the issue, then why bother posting?

Pax
Linus2nd

I posted to make a personal statement, about the complete waste of time, that is atheism.

 

[Stephen168]

O.K., but I am still lost? I guess it doesn’t matter then.

Pax
Linus2nd

there are people who believe the truth changes depending on who says it. My kids were like that until they grew up.
As you suggested in the OP, some don’t believe they are myths because Catholics say so. Other don’t believe it because an atheist says so.
As we know the truth is the truth.

 

[DrTaffy]

“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

Relevance?

Is this something sent personally to you and you just wanted to gloat or what?

“For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be.

It should certainly be an acknowledged mistake from which you will learn (or have already done so) and I doubt you can do that without also acknowledging some embarrassment.

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 "

Which includes many demonstrable falsehoods. For example:

He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun.

Galileo pointed out that there would not be observable stellar parallax if the stars were a long way away. He even had a fairly solid punt at estimating how far away they had to be.

This has been pointed out in this thread. You may not understand or agree with his answer, but to pretend that he could not or did not answer this is dishonest.

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

quora.com/What-is-the-mos…event?

So does it finally cite these alleged textbooks to which you refer?

 

[DrTaffy]

I honestly do not get your point here:

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.)

So if the people who condemned Galileo and tried to censor scientific thought couldn’t be bothered to hear the testimony themselves, but only read a report, that makes the Church’s heavy handed totalitarian response more justified in your view? :ehh:

He was certainly not aware of a more restrictive notice in the 1616 file specifically targeting him, which was revealed at the 1633 trial.

So if he was being punished for not obeying a notice of which he was not aware (and which was possibly a forgery) that makes the Church’s heavy handed totalitarian response more justified in your view? :ehh:

Seven of the 10 tribunal cardinals signed a condemnation of Galileo (the other three never signed it).

So if three of the judges either disagreed with or couldn’t be bothered to sign the judgement, that makes the Church’s heavy handed totalitarian response more justified in your view? :ehh:

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. "

Is that not exactly what the Church is accused of? Censoring scientific opinion and imprisoning a scientist for expressing his sincerely held and factually correct view?

Nor have you, or anyone, ever addressed the knotty but central problem: can a factually correct statement be heresy?

Does it not seem to you that when the Church stated in the Papal Condemnation that heliocentrism was heresy, the only ones who could have been expressing heresy were the Church officials? Does that not strike you as relevant today?

 

[Stephen168]

I am not an atheist. I was quoting an atheist, Tim O’Neill. Since he is an atheist, I thought others might be persuaded to see his argument as more objective. Apparently I was wrong. So today I encluded other references from Catholic Answers " Tracts " which support what Tim said. None of these arguments are about who proved what when, rather they are explanations of the facts of the case as the men involved saw them.

People who hate the Catholic Church will never be persuaded. As I said before, you can tell because they are not here to refute the myths, they are here to bash the Catholic Church. The myths listed by Tim O’Neill are in fact myths. In over 400 posts, only one person has attempted to say otherwise and they failed in their argument. The other two were here to bash the Church.
While the ‘tracts’ do include more facts of the case than your original OP, the ‘tracts’ also include the ‘who proved what when,’ because three of the myths are based on knowing the who knew what when.

1. “Galileo proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around.”
2. “The Church rejected science, condemned heliocentrism and was ignorant of the science behind Copernicus’ theory.”
3. “Galileo was condemned simply for using science to question Church teachings, which was forbidden by the Church.”

The Anti-Catholic’s Trump Card is a good, brief, explanation which brings out the faults on both sides of the affair, and some reasons why anti-Catholics cling to it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Relevance?

Is this something sent personally to you and you just wanted to gloat or what?

It should certainly be an acknowledged mistake from which you will learn (or have already done so) and I doubt you can do that without also acknowledging some embarrassment.

Which includes many demonstrable falsehoods. For example:

Galileo pointed out that there would not be observable stellar parallax if the stars were a long way away. He even had a fairly solid punt at estimating how far away they had to be.

This has been pointed out in this thread. You may not understand or agree with his answer, but to pretend that he could not or did not answer this is dishonest.

So does it finally cite these alleged textbooks to which you refer?

I included these references to show that the key issues raised by Tim O’Neill were true - in our opinion. I realize you disagree, that is to be expected - and I am certain a team of horses could not drag you away from that. As to parallaxes, I know nothing about them thank goodness. So I am saved from another endless debate . If I accept the opinion of someone I trust on this point, that is not dishonest, it is sensible. Why should I accept the opinion of someone who disagrees with me about just about everything?

As far as the statement about textbooks goes, I have it on good authority that it is true and I promised that if I ever got a chance to see some textbooks I would report. But I admit it was a strategical error, I should merely have mentioned the way the affair is treated in the press, media, periodicals, lectures, and as discussed in classrooms, etc. That would not have given the wolves a chance to pounce .

As far as
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd View Post
“For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be.
It should certainly be an acknowledged mistake from which you will learn (or have already done so) and I doubt you can do that without also acknowledging some embarrassment.] is concerned, the Church has been threatened by the best for 2,000 years, and we have been slandered by the best and of course we are always undergoing some attempt at intimidation from some source or another. That is just part of being a Catholic.

" “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! ”

This was not relevant but I was too late in deleting it. Don’t let it bother you, it has nothing to do with the Tract.
Cheers
Linus2nd