The Truth about the Gallileo affair - by an Atheist

[Linusthe2nd]

I didn’t make any claim about the Inquisition. You seem intent on derailing your own thread with off-topic points. Why don’t you start a separate thread if you want to discuss that?

btw it’s Thomas More, not Thomas Moore.

Then people brought little devils to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, “Let the little devils come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

I forgot all about the false assertion about Thomas More. So now you have two false assertions to verify. But I guess you have no proof.

Linus2nd

 

[weller2]

Unless you are willing to accept William A. Wallace O.P. as an authority on Galileo

I am willing to recognize William A. Wallace O.P. as an authority on Galileo. That said, I simply do not agree with his assertions about the scientific nature of the case, simply because I understand celestial mechanics and he apparently doesn’t. Let me quote your OP to show you a problem with his reasoning:

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).

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).

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.

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.

So… the planets move in ellipses through space. But, as pointed out in Dialogo, they must move through vacuum, because if the planet were moving through air, it would eventually stop due to air resistance. Problem was, the Church, after Aristotle, taught that vaccum does not exist. The reason for that was that the vaccum has no substance, but if there is something which has no substance, that means Aristotle’s substance theory is wrong. This is a big deal, because transsubstantiation – the core belief of Catholicism – critically relies on Aristotle’s substance theory.

So there you have it. Galileo has literally blown up the Aristotelean system. He proved that Earth is not the center of the world, and he (well, Kepler) proved that planets move through vaccum, which means that there is vaccum. (NB - at the time vaccum was so politically incorrect, that immediately after discovering it Torricelli did not publish, but wrote a letter to Pascal describing the experiment and asking him to continue.) And given that Church doctrine at the time was really stronlgy tied to Aristotelean system (arguably, it still is) a falsification of Aristotle essentially meant falsification of Catholicism.

And all that comes in a rather bad time for the Catholic Church. The protestant reformation is in full swing, and so is the counter-reformation effort. Across the Alps, a bloody Catholic-Protestant war has been raging for years (and the Catholics are losing it). At home, new translation of ancient works received via Arabs and via Constantinosple are being printed every day. The Church no longer has a monopoly on truth, and atheism is growing. And then comes this guy with a telescope who claims that the Church is wrong, and the Aristotle is wrong. And is book becomes an instant bestseller, and Dawkinses of the time are quoting it left and right to prove that there is no God.

Clearly, something had to be done.

The most revolting part is that Inquisition was prosecuting Galileo for publishing a book its own censors have approved earlier, as evidenced by the court transcript:

The book was handed over by me to the Father Inquisitor of Florence and by the Father Inquisitor to the above mentioned Father Giacinto Stefani; the latter returned it to the Father Inquisitor, who sent it to Mr. Niccolò dell’ Antella, reviewer of books to be printed for the Most Serene Highness of Florence; the printer, named Landini, received it form this Mr. Niccolò and, having negotiated with the Father Inquisitor, printed it, observing strictly every order given by the Father Master of the Sacred Palace.

 

[weller2]

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

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]

No, I see no bias. How would you change the questions given the course standards (“Understands how European society experienced political, economic, and cultural transformations in an age of global intercommunication between 1450 and 1750”, etc.)?

This is another private company, this time offering courses for a fee. If you don’t like the offering then buy elsewhere. Both this and your other example are a long long way from textbooks used in schools and universities. Textbooks are validated and selected, internet courses are not subject to any standards at all, just like blogs anyone can make them up.

But also remember that JPII himself said the Church as wrong and Galileo right:

“Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. 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.” - L’Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992

As you’ve not provided any examples of textbooks up to now then yes, unless you want your OP claim to crash and burn.

I know the Pope apologized. And I think that was unneeded and over done. And the news report from CNS backs up my claim that there were false myths that have circulated far and wide in secular education and books and articles, etc. ever since. I don’t deny that the incident was unfortunate but it has been overblown ever since. The O’neill blog set the record straight as verified by the Pope’s own book and the books written by Wallace. But people still paint the incident with the blackest, most biased brush possible. That was my point.

No " crash and burn " , the point is these companies wouldn’t be in business if public schools weren’t buying the propaganda.

Of course some people are constitutionally incapable of any objectivity ,

BTW, John Paul II was not a scientist. And contrary to the L/ Osservatori article Galileo never proved his theory. That was not done until 1838 or so.

Linus2nd

 

[weller2]

You appear to live in a fairyland of logic?

No, I live in a former communist country, which means I have access to both primary sources and eyewitnesses, not to mention decent historiography based on these.

Stalin was not God, and nobody thought of him as such.

After Stalin’s death, the Central Committee began to implement a policy of explaining concisely and consistently that it is impermissible and foreign to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism to elevate one person, to transform him into a superman possessing supernatural characteristics, akin to those of a god. Such a man supposedly knows everything, sees everything, thinks for everyone, can do anything, is infallible in his behavior.

Such a belief about a man, and specifically about Stalin, was cultivated among us for many years. The objective of the present report is not a thorough evaluation of Stalin’s life and activity. Concerning Stalin’s merits, an entirely sufficient number of books, pamphlets and studies had already been written in his lifetime. Stalin’s role of Stalin in the preparation and execution of the Socialist Revolution, in the Civil War, and in the fight for the construction of socialism in our country, is universally known. Everyone knows it well.

At present, we are concerned with a question which has immense importance for the Party now and for the future – with how the cult of the person of Stalin has been gradually growing, the cult which became at a certain specific stage the source of a whole series of exceedingly serious and grave perversions of Party principles, of Party democracy, of revolutionary legality.

Krushchev’s Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. Read the whole thing, it’s good

You apparently have read little literature about atheism being the official philosophy of the Soviet Union.

Did you maybe read Herling-Grudziński’s A World Apart: The Journal of a Gulag Survivor? It contains a very illuminating description of apparatchiks sent to Gulag for -]heresy/-] anti-revolutionary agitation who genuinely believed that -]Inquisition/-] NKVD is doing the right thing in correcting their deviation from the one true faith in -]God/-] Stalin, and the -]Church/-] Party who is leading everyone to -]heaven/-] a heaven on Earth. The book contains this conclusion: Communism is not a political system, communism is a religion.

 

[inocente]

I forgot all about the false assertion about Thomas More. So now you have two false assertions to verify. But I guess you have no proof.

Linus2nd

I don’t know what you’re on about, please quote where you think I made false assertions.

 

[inocente]

I know the Pope apologized. And I think that was unneeded and over done. And the news report from CNS backs up my claim that there were false myths that have circulated far and wide in secular education and books and articles, etc. ever since. I don’t deny that the incident was unfortunate but it has been overblown ever since. The O’neill blog set the record straight as verified by the Pope’s own book and the books written by Wallace. But people still paint the incident with the blackest, most biased brush possible. That was my point.

No " crash and burn " , the point is these companies wouldn’t be in business if public schools weren’t buying the propaganda.

Of course some people are constitutionally incapable of any objectivity

So you have no proof for your unfounded OP allegation, and now in addition allege that the Pope was also wrong.

BTW, John Paul II was not a scientist. And contrary to the L/ Osservatori article Galileo never proved his theory. That was not done until 1838 or so.

Presumably JPII initiated the Pontifical Commission so he could get expert technical views. Their report is in posts #24 and #25. If you read that report, the Commission was made up of four working groups: exegetical; cultural; scientific and epistemological; and historical and juridical. They took 11 years, from 1981 to 1992. But according to you, some unknown blogger with no track record is more of an authority than an 11 year Pontifical Commission made up of experts.

JPII was not wrong in the L’Osservatore Romano article. He never said Galileo proved, he said Galileo understood. JPII obviously knew what most people know, that science doesn’t prove anything, that all scientific knowledge is provisional. JPII was stating the obvious fact that Galileo turned out to be right, as the Pontifical Commission said “Galileo’s adversaries, neither before nor after him, have discovered anything which could constitute a convincing refutation of Copernican astronomy”.

You keep making unfounded allegations against anyone and everyone, now even unto John Paul II.

Watching her grandson on parade with the other soldiers, grandmother proudly exclaims: “Look, everyone but Linus is out of step!”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am willing to recognize William A. Wallace O.P. as an authority on Galileo. That said, I simply do not agree with his assertions about the scientific nature of the case, simply because I understand celestial mechanics and he apparently doesn’t. Let me quote your OP to show you a problem with his reasoning:

That was not taken from Wallace but he may have agreed with it. Read Wallace’s bio, i doubt he was incapable of understancing celestial mechanics.

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

Opinion.

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).

In othe words he could not definitely demonstrate that his theory was a scientific fact. And that was the whole point.i

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.

But that was not the issue. Considering the politics of the time the Church was not going to agree to something which challanged the belief of the great run of the faithful without definite proof that heliocentrism was a scientific fact.

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.

Beside the point.

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.

Even Thoma Aquinas suggested that some time in the future other explanations might be offered. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, so easy to judge the past from our advantage. Remember, up to that time there was no reason to suspect they were wrong. It demanded proof.

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.

Many churchmen of the time would certainly have agreed.

So… the planets move in ellipses through space. But, as pointed out in Dialogo, they must move through vacuum, because if the planet were moving through air, it would eventually stop due to air resistance. Problem was, the Church, after Aristotle, taught that vaccum does not exist. The reason for that was that the vaccum has no substance, but if there is something which has no substance, that means Aristotle’s substance theory is wrong. This is a big deal, because transsubstantiation – the core belief of Catholicism – critically relies on Aristotle’s substance theory.

Space is not a vacuum, never has been, there is always some resistence. It has absolutely nothing to do with Aristotl’s concept of substance. God is pure spirit, Angels are spirits, the human soul is a substance, by the fact that they exist. Aristotle taught that anything that existed was a substance. It had nothing to do with a vacuum. And of course all men can be mistaken, even Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Pope John Paur II, you, me, all of us. If Aristotle said that a vacuum could not exist because it was not a substance, that simply means that he was wrong on that specific point, not on his understanding of what a substance was.

To be continued.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Weller2 Post 87 continued

So there you have it. Galileo has literally blown up the Aristotelean system.

Value judgment, and unfounded. His philosophy does not rest on the celestial spheres and the movement of the heavens…

He proved that Earth is not the center of the world, and he (well, Kepler) proved that planets move through vaccum, which means that there is vaccum

Opinion. And Kepler did not prove the planets moved through a vaccum, because space is not a vaccum as scientists should be aware. It is true that it is a near vaccum as far as particles having mass are concerned. But even then there are always some particles of mass present. So there is no genuine vaccum. Close only counts in horseshoes - not in science, as you should know…

(NB - at the time vaccum was so politically incorrect, that immediately after discovering it Torricelli did not publish, but wrote a letter to Pascal describing the experiment and asking him to continue.)

And, if this is so, the Church was right, there is no vaccum.

And given that Church doctrine at the time was really stronlgy tied to Aristotelean system (arguably, it still is) a falsification of Aristotle essentially meant falsification of Catholicism.

The Church is tied to no philosophy, however it does make wide use of the learning of many great men, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas among them, but also of great men of our own time.

Aristotle may have been in error about the celestial spheres, that does not invalidate his philosophy, nor does it invalidate Catholicism. As you know the Church is guaranteed to teach the truth only in matters of faith and morals. The movement of the heavens was never a Doctrine of the Church. It was never anything but an opinion, one that was commonly held at the time, world wide it so happens.

And all that comes in a rather bad time for the Catholic Church. The protestant reformation is in full swing, and so is the counter-reformation effort. Across the Alps, a bloody Catholic-Protestant war has been raging for years (and the Catholics are losing it). At home, new translation of ancient works received via Arabs and via Constantinosple are being printed every day. The Church no longer has a monopoly on truth, and atheism is growing.

The Church has never had, nor claimed to have had, a monopoly on truth.

And then comes this guy with a telescope who claims that the Church is wrong, and the Aristotle is wrong. And is book becomes an instant bestseller, and Dawkinses of the time are quoting it left and right to prove that there is no God.

Opinions. And by the way, Galileo and many of the men of his day were reading interpretations of Aristotle, of which there were many in circulation at the time. So which was he reading, that is the question.?

Clearly, something had to be done.

The most revolting part is that Inquisition was prosecuting Galileo for publishing a book its own censors have approved earlier, as evidenced by the court transcript:

He was ordered to stop teaching heliocentrism as a fact, he was allowed to teach it as a theory and did so.

I admit the incident was regrettable. But the secular world from then until now has blown it entirely out of proportion. If it had an adverse effect on science, that could only have been in Catholic countries. So what hindered science in the non-Catholic world? You cannot blame lack of progress in science on the Catholic Church in those countries. We moderns or the moderns of any age are always so quick to judge the past by from our " enlightened " perspective, all the while failing to acknowledge our own sins and failures

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t know what you’re on about, please quote where you think I made false assertions.

Surely you jest .

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So you have no proof for your unfounded OP allegation, and now in addition allege that the Pope was also wrong.

Presumably JPII initiated the Pontifical Commission so he could get expert technical views. Their report is in posts #24 and #25. If you read that report, the Commission was made up of four working groups: exegetical; cultural; scientific and epistemological; and historical and juridical. They took 11 years, from 1981 to 1992. But according to you, some unknown blogger with no track record is more of an authority than an 11 year Pontifical Commission made up of experts.

JPII was not wrong in the L’Osservatore Romano article. He never said Galileo proved, he said Galileo understood. JPII obviously knew what most people know, that science doesn’t prove anything, that all scientific knowledge is provisional. JPII was stating the obvious fact that Galileo turned out to be right, as the Pontifical Commission said “Galileo’s adversaries, neither before nor after him, have discovered anything which could constitute a convincing refutation of Copernican astronomy”.

You keep making unfounded allegations against anyone and everyone, now even unto John Paul II.

Watching her grandson on parade with the other soldiers, grandmother proudly exclaims: “Look, everyone but Linus is out of step!”

You have one thing going for you, not logic or objectiviey, but wit and humor. Yes, I march to my own drummer, I never let anyone else do my thinking for me. I mean I don’t follow the crowd, I follow the Truth.

Bye, bye for today.

Linus2nd

 

[weller2]

That was not taken from Wallace but he may have agreed with it. Read Wallace’s bio, i doubt he was incapable of understancing celestial mechanics.

I’m not saying that he was incapable of understanding celestial mechanics. I’m saying he didn’t understand celestial mechanics, possibly because he has never bothered to study it. If he did, he would have never made the argument about stellar parallax.

Stellar parallax was not raised during the trial. Further, removal of Copernican works from the Index happened about 100 years before the stellar parallax was first observed. It’s quite obvious that the Church never considered observation of stellar parallax to be a needed proof.

In othe words he could not definitely demonstrate that his theory was a scientific fact.

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.

And that was the whole point.

No, the whole point is that the tribunal did not bother to look at experimental evidence at all. You make it sound like the tribunal asked Galileo about stellar parallax, but the proceedings from the case contain no discussion about evidence for his claims.

 

[weller2]

He was ordered to stop teaching heliocentrism as a fact, he was allowed to teach it as a theory and did so.

Have you bothered to read the book in question?

It does not present heliocentrism as a fact, rather, it summarizes arguments on both sides. It just happens that pro-heliocentrism argument ends up being more convincing. Further, the book has already passed through Church censors who have found nothing wrong with it.

The case was entirely without merit.

I admit the incident was regrettable.

You call dragging an ailing old man in front of a kangaroo court to convict him of a crime he did not commit, while ignoring objective evidence – regrettable? That’s quite an understatement.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m not saying that he was incapable of understanding celestial mechanics. I’m saying he didn’t understand celestial mechanics, possibly because he has never bothered to study it. If he did, he would have never made the argument about stellar parallax.

Have you looked at Wallace’s bio. He was a physicist but not an astrophysicist. Though I don’t remember his work in detail, but from his scholarship I am sure he never left a stone unturned. But I assure you he was perfectly able to understand celestial mechanics. I did not say he made the argument about the stellar parallax. O’neill repeated that argument, I don’t know his source.

Why not read one of Wallace’s books?

Stellar parallax was not raised during the trial. Further, removal of Copernican works from the Index happened about 100 years before the stellar parallax was first observed. It’s quite obvious that the Church never considered observation of stellar parallax to be a needed proof.

Rightly or wrongly, they made the judgment with the information they had.

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.

Again, it was not obvious to the judges in the trial. We cannot judge them based on our superior knowledge. You also have to realize that they also relied on the opinion of other learned men besides themselves.

No, the whole point is that the tribunal did not bother to look at experimental evidence at all. You make it sound like the tribunal asked Galileo about stellar parallax, but the proceedings from the case contain no discussion about evidence for his claims.

I am sure they didn’t, since that did not come to light until the 19th century.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Have you bothered to read the book in question?

Which book do you mean?

It does not present heliocentrism as a fact, rather, it summarizes arguments on both sides. It just happens that pro-heliocentrism argument ends up being more convincing. Further, the book has already passed through Church censors who have found nothing wrong with it.

The case was entirely without merit.

You call dragging an ailing old man in front of a kangaroo court to convict him of a crime he did not commit, while ignoring objective evidence – regrettable? That’s quite an understatement.

Obviously what they regarded as evidence was different from what moders would consider evidence. We have the advantage of time and advanced scientific development. We really cannot judge them justly by standards ( ours ) of which they were ignorant.

If it was a kangaroo court it was one of a type that the whole world was engaged in, both the Catholic and the Protestant world, so why are you so upset that the Church was doing the same?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia ( the old one ):

The direct services which Galileo rendered to astronomy are virtually summed up in his telescopic discoveries, which, brilliant and important as they were, contributed little or nothing to the theoretical perfection of the science, and were sure to be made by any careful observer provided with a telescope. Again, he wholly neglected discoveries far more fundamental than his own, made by his great contemporary Kepler, the value of which he either did not perceive or entirely ignored. Since the first and second of his famous laws were already published by Kepler in 1609 and the third, ten years later, it is truly inconceivable, as Delambre says, that Galileo should not once have made any mention of these discoveries, far more difficult than his own, which finally led Newton to determine the general principle which forms the very soul of the celestial mechanism thus established. It is, moreover, undeniable, that the proofs which Galileo adduced in support of the heliocentric system of Copernicus, as against the geocentric of Ptolemy and the ancients, were far from conclusive, and failed to convince such men as Tycho Brahé (who, however, did not live to see the telescope) and Lord Bacon, who to the end remained an unbeliever. Milton also, who visited Galileo in his old age (1638), appears to have suspended his judgment, for there are passages in his great poem which seem to favour both systems. The proof from the phenomenon of the tides, to which Galileo appealed to establish the rotation of the earth on its axis, is now universally recognized as a grave error, and he treated with scorn Kepler’s suggestion, foreshadowing Newton’s establishment of the true doctrine, that a certain occult influence of the moon was in some way responsible. In regard to comets, again, he maintained no less erroneously that they were atmospheric phenomena, like meteors, though Tycho had demonstrated the falsity of such a view, which was recommended only as the solution of an anti-Copernican difficulty.

In spite of all deficiency in his arguments, Galileo, profoundly assured of the truth of his cause, set himself with his habitual vehemence to convince others, and so contributed in no small degree to create the troubles which greatly embittered the latter part of his life.

In regard to their history, there are two main points to be considered. It is in the first place constantly assumed, especially at the present day, that the opposition which Copernicanism encountered at the hands of ecclesiastical authority was prompted by hatred of science and a desire to keep the minds of men in the darkness of ignorance. To suppose that any body of men could deliberately adopt such a course is ridiculous, especially a body which, with whatever defects of method, had for so long been the only one which concerned itself with science at all.

newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

You should read the article, you and one other here!

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Weller2 Post 94 contin.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

In regard to their history, there are two main points to be considered. It is in the first place constantly assumed, especially at the present day, that the opposition which Copernicanism encountered at the hands of ecclesiastical authority was prompted by hatred of science and a desire to keep the minds of men in the darkness of ignorance. To suppose that any body of men could deliberately adopt such a course is ridiculous, especially a body which, with whatever defects of method, had for so long been the only one which concerned itself with science at all.

It is likewise contradicted by the history of the very controversy with which we are now concerned. According to a popular notion the point, upon which beyond all others churchmen were determined to insist, was the geocentric system of astronomy. Nevertheless it was a churchman, Nicholas Copernicus, who first advanced the contrary doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the centre of our system, round which our planet revolves, rotating on its own axis. His great work, “De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium”, was published at the earnest solicitation of two distinguished churchmen, Cardinal Schömberg and Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III in order, as Copernicus explained, that it might be thus protected from the attacks which it was sure to encounter on the part of the “mathematicians” (i.e. philosophers) for its apparent contradiction of the evidence of our senses, and even of common sense. He added that he made no account of objections which might be brought by ignorant wiseacres on Scriptural grounds. Indeed, for nearly three quarters of a century no such difficulties were raised on the Catholic side, although Luther and Melanchthon condemned the work of Copernicus in unmeasured terms. Neither Paul III, nor any of the nine popes who followed him, nor the Roman Congregations raised any alarm, and, as has been seen, Galileo himself in 1597, speaking of the risks he might run by an advocacy of Copernicanism, mentioned ridicule only and said nothing of persecution. Even when he had made his famous discoveries, no change occurred in this respect. On the contrary, coming to Rome in 1611, he was received in triumph; all the world, clerical and lay, flocked to see him, and, setting up his telescope in the Quirinal Garden belonging to Cardinal Bandim, he exhibited the sunspots and other objects to an admiring throng.

It was not until four years later that trouble arose, the ecclesiastical authorities taking alarm at the persistence with which Galileo proclaimed the truth of the Copernican doctrine. That their opposition was grounded, as is constantly assumed, upon a fear lest men should be enlightened by the diffusion of scientific truth, it is obviously absurd to maintain. On the contrary, they were firmly convinced, with Bacon and others, that the new teaching was radically false and unscientific, while it is now truly admitted that Galileo himself had no sufficient proof of what he so vehemently advocated, and Professor Huxley after examining the case avowed his opinion that the opponents of Galileo “had rather the best of it”. But what, more than all, raised alarm was anxiety for the credit of Holy Scripture, the letter of which was then universally believed to be the supreme authority in matters of science, as in all others. When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore heretical. It is evident that, since the days of Copernicus himself, the Reformation controversy had done much to attach suspicion to novel interpretations of the Bible, which was not lessened by the endeavours of Galileo and his ally Foscarini to find positive arguments for Copernicanism in the inspired volume. Foscarini, a Carmelite friar of noble lineage, who had twice ruled Calabria as provincial, and had considerable reputation as a preacher and theologian, threw himself with more zeal than discretion into the controversy, as when he sought to find an argument for Copernicanism in the seven-branched candlestick of the Old Law. Above all, he excited alarm by publishing works on the subject in the vernacular, and thus spreading the new doctrine, which was startling even for the learned, amongst the masses who were incapable of forming any sound judgment concerning it. There was at the time an active sceptical party in Italy, which aimed at the overthrow of all religion, and, as Sir David Brewster acknowledges (Martyrs of Science), there is no doubt that this party lent Galileo all its support.

In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December, 1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it. This he obediently did,

To be continued

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Weller2 post 95 continued

In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December, 1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5 March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any advocating the Copernican system. In this decree no mention is made of Galileo, or of any of his works. Neither is the name of the pope introduced, though there is no doubt that he fully approved the decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein the matter was discussed and decided. In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. Galileo and Foscarini rightly urged that the Bible is intended to teach men to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that, while there was as yet no sufficient proof of the Copernican system, no objection was made to its being taught as an hypothesis which explained all phenomena in a simpler manner than the Ptolemaic, and might for all practical purposes be adopted by astronomers. What was objected to was the assertion that Copernicanism was in fact true, “which appears to contradict Scripture”. It is clear, moreover, that the authors of the judgment themselves did not consider it to be absolutely final and irreversible, for Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the Sacred College, writing to Foscarini, after urging that he and Galileo should be content to show that their system explains all celestial phenomena — an unexceptional proposition, and one sufficient for all practical purposes — but should not categorically assert what seemed to contradict the Bible, thus continued:

I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.

By this decree the work of Copernicus was for the first time prohibited, as well as the “Epitome” of Kepler, but in each instance only donec corrigatur, the corrections prescribed being such as were necessary to exhibit the Copernican system as an hypothesis, not as an established fact. We learn further that with permission these works might be read in their entirety, by “the learned and skilful in the science” (Remus to Kepler). Galileo seems, says von Gebler, to have treated the decree of the Inquisition pretty coolly, speaking with satisfaction of the trifling changes prescribed in the work of Copernicus. He left Rome, however, with the evident intention of violating the promise extracted from him, and, while he pursued unmolested his searches in other branches of science, he lost no opportunity of manifesting his contempt for the astronomical system which he had promised to embrace. Nevertheless, when in 1624 he again visited Rome, he met with what is rightly described as “a noble and generous reception”. The pope now reigning, Urban VIII, had, as Cardinal Barberini, been his friend and had opposed his condemnation in 1616. He conferred on his visitor a pension, to which as a foreigner in Rome Galileo had no claim, and which, says Brewster, must be regarded as an endowment of Science itself. But to Galileo’s disappointment Urban would not annul the former judgment of the Inquisition.

After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory. Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite of it he was condemned as “vehemently suspected of heresy” to incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.

Under the sentence of imprisonment Galileo remained till his death in 1642. It is, however, untrue to speak of him as in any proper sense a “prisoner”. As his Protestant biographer, von Gebler, tells us, “One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one that Galileo spent altogether twenty-two days in the buildings of the Holy Office (i.e. the Inquisition), and even then not in a prison cell with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition.” For the rest, he was allowed to use as his places of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and usually luxurious. It is wholly untrue that he was — as is constantly stated — either tortured or blinded by his persecutors — though in 1637, five years before his death, he became totally blind — or that he was refused burial in consecrated ground. On the contrary, although the pope (Urban VIII) did not allow a monument to be erected over his tomb, he sent his special blessing to the dying man, who was interred not only in consecrated ground, but within the church of Santa Croce at Florence.

to be continued.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Weller2 post 96 continued

Finally, the famous “E pur si muove”, supposed to have been uttered by Galileo, as he rose from his knees after renouncing the motion of the earth, is an acknowledged fiction, of which no mention can be found till more than a century after his death, which took place 8 January 1642, the year in which Newton was born.

Such in brief is the history of this famous conflict between ecclesiastical authority and science, to which special theological importance has been attached in connection with the question of papal infallibility. Can it be said that either Paul V or Urban VIII so committed himself to the doctrine of geocentricism as to impose it upon the Church as an article of faith, and so to teach as pope what is now acknowledged to be untrue? That both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope approved the Congregation’s decision in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were judged harmful. The pope and his assessors may have been wrong in such a judgment, but this does not alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree ex cathedra.

As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope’s signature. Nor is this only an opinion of theologians; it is corroborated by writers whom none will accuse of any bias in favour of the papacy. Thus Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) declares

It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope — who knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope — and not of the body which calls itself the Church.

And von Gebler (“Galileo Galilei”):

The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church.

It may be added that Riccioli and other contemporaries of Galileo were permitted, after 1616, to declare that no anti-Copernican definition had issued from the supreme pontiff.

More vital at the present day is the question with which we commenced: “Does not the condemnation of Galileo prove the implacable opposition of the Church to scientific progress and enlightenment?” It may be replied with Cardinal Newman that this instance serves to prove the opposite, namely that the Church has not interfered with physical science, for Galileo’s case “is the one stock argument” (Apologia 5). So too Professor De Morgan acknowledges (“Motion of the Earth” in English Cyclopaedia):

The Papal power must upon the whole have been moderately used in matters of philosophy, if we may judge by the great stress laid on this one case of Galileo. It is the standing proof that an authority which has lasted a thousand years was all the time occupied in checking the progress of thought.

So Dr. Whewell speaking of this same case says (History of the Inductive Sciences):–

I would not be understood to assert the condemnation of new doctrines to be a general or characteristic practice of the Romish Church. Certainly the intelligent and cultivated minds of Italy, and many of the most eminent of her ecclesiastics among them, have been the foremost in promoting and welcoming the progress of science, and there were found among the Italian ecclesiastics of Galileo’s time many of the earliest and most enlightened adherents of the Copernican system.

Please note that Martin Luther, Bacon, Milton and other famous men disagreed with Galileo. It is a fact that there were those who disagreed with him and they were not churchmen. It is also clear that few people understand the controversy in spite of the fact that the facts are well known. It is still a case of advocates on one side or the other defended what they regard as " sacred ground. "

What I hope for is that people stop pummeling the Church for something which can only be judged in the context of the time and considering the sensitive personalities involved. This was not a case of Church Dogma or Doctrine as it did not pertain to matters of faith or morals. It was a case, more than anything, of maintaining the " calm of the realm, " the common good, keeping ordinary faithful from becoming unsettled in their minds - in my opinion.

Linus2nd .

 

[cornbread_r2]

Did the inquisitors show Galileo the instruments of torture?

 

[weller2]

Which book do you mean?

Dialogue of the two world systems, of course. Did you read it? If you read it, can you provide a quote where the book teaches heliocentrism as a fact?

Obviously what they regarded as evidence was different from what moders would consider evidence. We have the advantage of time and advanced scientific development. We really cannot judge them justly by standards ( ours ) of which they were ignorant.

No. They have failed by their own standards. The main job of the Inquisition tribunal was to determine the facts of the case. This is the reason why European legal system is called the inquisitorial system: the judge’s job is to determine the objective facts of the case. (This is in contrast with the British-American system, which is adversarial, and the judge is limited to evaluating evidence presented by the parties.) It’s been a while since I was doing my reading on Inquisition, but I remember that there were cases concerning whichcraft which ended with acquittal, because the inquisitors determined that there was no objective evidence of paranormal activity.

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

Arguably, what happened was worse than the execution of Giordano Bruno – Bruno has at least committed an actual heresy.