The Truth about the Gallileo affair - by an Atheist

[weller2]

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)

Hold on there, Tycho died in 1601. Galileo did not build the telescope until 1609, and the telescope is required to see the phases of Venus. No wonder Tycho died unconvinced!

 

[weller2]

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.

I.e., a kangaroo court for the Pope’s pleasure. See, your own sources agree with me

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

No and I doubt I would get much out of it. I never said it taught heliocentrism as a fact. I said Galileo was forbidden by the Inqusition from teaching it as a fact.

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.

By their lights they determined that Galileo was wrong.

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

Opinion.

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

Yes it was wrong, but it cannot be compared to burning a man at the stake.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I.e., a kangaroo court for the Pope’s pleasure. See, your own sources agree with me

I have never defended the Inquisition. There were two egotistical people involved, the Pope and Galileo. While you condemn the Pope, you are silent about Galileo.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

Wouldn’t do me much good, doubt if I would understand much of it. I don’t think I ever said it taught heliocentrism. Galileo was going around the country presenting it as fact. And that is what got him in hot water.

No. They have failed by their own standards. The main job of the Inquisition tribunal was to determine the facts of the case.

I’m sure they thought they had. They failed by from our advantage of hindsight. It is always easy to condemn the actors of the past.

" …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”. " ( From the Catholic Encyclopedia )

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.

I know nothing about the Europen legal system. Neither theirs nor ours are perfect or free from corruption.

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

Opinion

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

I don’t think you really mean that. They can hardly be compared.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I.e., a kangaroo court for the Pope’s pleasure. See, your own sources agree with me

It at leas had the facade of legality.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hold on there, Tycho died in 1601. Galileo did not build the telescope until 1609, and the telescope is required to see the phases of Venus. No wonder Tycho died unconvinced!

Well, I am surprised. That has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. He had his own theories of how the universe worked and they differed from those of Galileo. Guess who Tycho’s assistant was at the end of his life, none other than Kepler himself.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Did the inquisitors show Galileo the instruments of torture?

He was never tortured. He was confined to his home and lived in the lap of luxury and received a constant flow of visitors and wrote constantly.

Linus2nd

 

[cornbread_r2]

He was never tortured. He was confined to his home and lived in the lap of luxury and received a constant flow of visitors and wrote constantly.

Linus2nd

Should I take that as a “yes”?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Should I take that as a “yes”?

Yes to what? He was not tortured. He was sentenced to house arrest in his own villa.

Linus2nd

 

[cornbread_r2]

Yes to what? …]

Linus2nd

Did the inquisitors show Galileo the instruments of torture?

 

[weller2]

[Tycho] had his own theories of how the universe worked and they differed from those of Galileo.

…32 years before Inquisition convicted Galileo.

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

Opinion

Conclusion from the proceedings.

Yes it was wrong, but it cannot be compared to burning a man at the stake.

Bruno at least clearly violated the law, even if one believes that the law was wrong.

 

[weller2]

No and I doubt I would get much out of it. I never said it taught heliocentrism as a fact.

So by your own admission, you are unwilling to read the primary sources yourself, and prefer to rely on biased apologetic works?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Did the inquisitors show Galileo the instruments of torture?

There were no instruments of torture! He was not tortured. If you don’t want to make a serious contrabution please go away.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Surely you jest .

Linus2nd

You’ve made a number of allegations on this thread, and haven’t given a shred of evidence for any of them. I’ve provided evidence that it was all groundless defamation.

Now you make allegations against me, and as with all the rest just duck and dive.

You wrote “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.”

I don’t know what these two assertions are. Either retract or link my posts, quoting exactly where you allege I made these two false assertions, and saying exactly why you allege they are false, with evidence that they are.

Please don’t come back with more ducking and diving, if I said something wrong then I’ll correct it, I am not impressed by people who throw mud around without ever providing any evidence, it’s neither Christian nor scholarly, it’s just dumb.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think you’re confusing agnostic with atheist. Clarence Darrow’s essay begins with “An agnostic is a doubter. The word is generally applied to those who doubt the verity of accepted religious creeds of faiths. Everyone is an agnostic as to the beliefs or creeds they do not accept. Catholics are agnostic to the Protestant creeds, and the Protestants are agnostic to the Catholic creed.”.

If essays on “Why I Am [insert name of belief here]” were added for balance, that would make for a humungous doorstop of a textbook.

Four out of every five Americans are religious, yet from what you say none of them write textbooks, none of them work in the media, none of them serve on school councils, none of them ever bothers to vote… all are held hostage by some nameless minority.

Here you are sitting on a limb and sawing it off from the wrong side.

One of the least creditable posts you have ever done.

Not even worth an answer beyond these few remarks. :sad_bye:

 

[inocente]

Here you are sitting on a limb and sawing it off from the wrong side.

One of the least creditable posts you have ever done.

Not even worth an answer beyond these few remarks. :sad_bye:

From the stickies:

• If you aren’t going to go into the discussion with the resolution that you could just possibly have your view broadened, you may as well not go into it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

From the stickies:

• If you aren’t going to go into the discussion with the resolution that you could just possibly have your view broadened, you may as well not go into it.

And that would of course apply to everyone wouldn’t it.

Things you said but did not provide proof for.

1. From post 11, " .Shall we mention being burned at the stake simply for owning a bible in English? "
2. Sorry the second item I had in mind was made by another poster and remains unproven.

So we each made a mistake.

Although one might consider this as an item. From your posts 55 & 56, " Would you please cite your evidence of high school and university texts which are at variance with the official Church report (posts #24 and #25)? "

I never made any such statement. That was your own creative interpretation of the O.P.
I wonder if there is a " sticky " for making invalid, creative interpretations. I don’t know what the logical error is here but it sure violates the Rules of Hoyle.

Have a nice day.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

…32 years before Inquisition convicted Galileo.

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

Conclusion from the proceedings.

Bruno at least clearly violated the law, even if one believes that the law was wrong.

Monday morning quarterbacing is always easier. It is all opinion on our part.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

And that would of course apply to everyone wouldn’t it.

Things you said but did not provide proof for.

1. From post 11, " .Shall we mention being burned at the stake simply for owning a bible in English? "
2. Sorry the second item I had in mind was made by another poster and remains unproven.

So we each made a mistake.

Although one might consider this as an item. From your posts 55 & 56, " Would you please cite your evidence of high school and university texts which are at variance with the official Church report (posts #24 and #25)?"

I never made any such statement. That was your own creative interpretation of the O.P.
I wonder if there is a " sticky " for making invalid, creative interpretations. I don’t know what the logical error is here but it sure violates the Rules of Hoyle.

Have a nice day.

Linus2nd

So you were wrong, I didn’t make any false assertions. And I didn’t make a mistake, see post #23.

Nor was I being creative. Here is what you wrote in your OP:

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.

I asked for evidence of any school and university texts which are at variance with the Pontifical Commission (posts #24 and #25), as obviously any in accord cannot be lying. You haven’t been able to give any examples to back up your allegation.

The Church got some things wrong 400 years ago and JPII apologized. I’m not sure of the value of you trying to nuance that apology, it might be more politic to let sleeping dogs lie.

I’'ll PM you why I say that, you can decide whether to post it.