Why was there an Index of Prohibited Books?

[WildEyedAtheist]

I would be a little more skeptical of some viewpoints if I were you, as sometimes things are not always what they seem. Copernicus introduced Heliocentrism, not Galileo and dedicated De revolutionibus orbium coelestium to Pope Paul III. Galileo was in trouble for disrespect, not for his theory. Respect was taken a lot more seriously in the old days.
Scylla

Actually, he earliest traces of a counter-intuitive idea that it is the Earth that is actually moving and the Sun that is at the centre of the solar system (hence the concept of heliocentrism) is found in several Vedic Sanskrit texts written in ancient India.

Galileo was a avowed Catholic. Of course he dedicated his findings and publications to the Pope. Copernicus merely introduced a mathematical model Heliocentrism. Galileo came up with the math to prove it and Kepler codified it.

Galileo’s theoretical and experimental work on the motions of bodies, along with the largely independent work of Kepler and René Descartes, was a precursor of the classical mechanics developed by Sir Isaac Newton. He was a pioneer, at least in the European tradition, in performing rigorous experiments and insisting on a mathematical description of the laws of nature.

Galileo was in trouble for his theory, not disrespect.

"Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as “formally heretical.”

“While Church officials did condemn Galileo, heliocentrism was never formally or officially condemned by the Catholic Church, except insofar as it held (for instance, in the formal condemnation of Galileo) that “The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures”, and the converse as to the Sun’s not revolving around the Earth.”

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

Your kitchen cupboards likely contain many things that are poisonous to your children. Do you not prohibit your children from going in those cabinets, to keep them from being poisoned? What could they possibly gain from being allowed to play in those cupboards?

The Church knows what is good for us spiritually. Like any child, we must listen to our Mother. This seems foreign to us post-enlightenment “free-thinkers.” But obedience does not equal blind ignorance.

No one has ever “died” from reading a book, or from an original idea (well, unless the church burned them at the stake for it…)

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

He may also be here to annoy us. I think he may be trolling:tsktsk:

No. I am here to debate theology. Unless you ask me to leave, of course.

 

[mtr01]

The Church has always supported the sciences AS LONG AS it agreed with Church dogma and perceived Bible history. History is littered with examples of this.

One prime example: Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:

* Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical." However, while there is no doubt that Pope Urban VIII and the vast majority of Church officials did not believe in heliocentrism, Catholic doctrine is defined by the pope when he speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Saint Peter) in matters of faith and morals. While Church officials did condemn Galileo, heliocentrism was never formally or officially condemned by the Catholic Church, except insofar as it held (for instance, in the formal condemnation of Galileo) that "The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures", and the converse as to the Sun's not revolving around the Earth.
* He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
* His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

Now Dialogue was banned by the Church because, as you said, “promotes lies as truth it should be exposed as something that shouldn’t be read.” You know better NOW, but if you had lived then, you would not have had the chance to view these “heretical” ideas for yourself, as they went against established Church doctrine that the earth was the center of the universe,

Who “exposed” Galileo? Or do you still believe that the sun orbits the earth and the stars tell us about our daily lives?

Best Regards,

Michael

I think you are somewhat misinformed about the Galileo issue, especially considering the Copernican heliocentric view was discovered by…you guessed it…a Catholic priest. Remember also, Kepler who wrote about heliocentrism never appeared before the Inquistion. Why do you think that is?

Take a look at this link.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Actually, he earliest traces of a counter-intuitive idea that it is the Earth…

May I recommend W.E.A. that if you want to have discussions here that you shorten your posts a little? It’s suggested in the forum rules. And if you want to discuss your version of Gallileo history, may I recommend reading/starting other threads about the subject that have already taken place here?

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

I think you are somewhat misinformed about the Galileo issue, especially considering the Copernican heliocentric view was discovered by…you guessed it…a Catholic priest. Remember also, Kepler who wrote about heliocentrism never appeared before the Inquistion. Why do you think that is?

Take a look at this link.

Nice try. However, I prefer to get my information from less biased sources.

The Galileo Project, Rice University

Heliocentric, Wikipedia.org

Where the theory began, University of Michigan

Your Catholic Priest was but one scientist in a line stretching back thousands of years who postulated this theory, my friend.

Remember, by adhering to this notion of circular movement, Copernicus continued an astronomical tradition of two thousand years which dated back to ancient Greece, and continued through the Arab astronomy of the Middle Ages and right up to the Christian astronomy.

Galileo too upheld this tradition by maintaining the claim that circular movement was the characteristic movement of the celestial bodies.

Johannes Kepler was the first to discover that the planets move in an elliptical orbit around the sun.

In 1539, the Protestant leader Martin Luther denounced the new theory.

** The Catholic Church disregarded Copernicus’ book until 1616, when it was included in the “Index”: A list of prohibited books.**

The Catholic church even used Copernicus’ book to correct the calendar (which we still use today). The Church did not object to the theory so long as the book was treated as no more than a mathematical explanation,(about which he had heard considerable rumors). Which does not really claim that the earth rotates around the sun. This explanation also allowed Protestant astronomers to use the theory.

IN SUMMARY: Although it was Copernicus who presented a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system, it was was Kepler and Galileo who later who laid down the foundation.

And let’s not forget Newton’s contribution!

The philosophical idea of heliocentrism can be traced back to the 8th century, but the giants of physics, the guys who finally figured it all out, are still Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo.

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

Remember also, Kepler who wrote about heliocentrism never appeared before the Inquisition. Why do you think that is?

Because Rudolf II, King of Bohemia, King of Hungary, Croatia and Slavonia, had Protestant leanings and was a devotee of occult arts and learning which helped seed the scientific revolution.

The Holy See did not have the iron grip on this part of the world as it had on France and Italy. His protection as a scientist under Rudolf II was absolute.

He had nothing to be concerned with, unlike those poor saps in Rome and Paris, who had to grovel at the feet of the Pope if they wished to get “permission” to publish their work.

 

[WildEyedAtheist]

May I recommend W.E.A. that if you want to have discussions here that you shorten your posts a little? It’s suggested in the forum rules. And if you want to discuss your version of Gallileo history, may I recommend reading/starting other threads about the subject that have already taken place here?

Sorry. One of my favorite subjects. Scylla emailed me and told me that she was going to start another thread to do just that, as she also, had questions for me. She mentioned that it might not be until tomorrow, though.

She’s going to email me when she does.

Regards,

Michael

 

[rocklobster]

Just wanted to say this:
God created science so that we could better understand the world. The reason He can bend His own rules is that He is omnipotent.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

The Church has always supported the sciences AS LONG AS it agreed with Church dogma and perceived Bible history. History is littered with examples of this.

So is science, for that matter, if you look at anthropologists ~40 years ago who doubted the then party line that the Neanderthal were a genetic dead end that could not cross with “modern” humans. And that was just for investigating whether the claim was true using evidentiary approaches that would pass muster with the standards of scientific inquiry, which is a lot more than could be said for how Galileo documented his finding.

Where Galileo’s work had significantly less scientific weight than that of Copernicus, and he regularly relied on bluster when he didn’t have the facts to support a claim, Copernicus didn’t publish a single thing that wasn’t set up for outside verification, which was why Copernicus was promoted several times within the hierarchy despite his known position on heliocentrism.

Galileo made observations, but essentially declared himself exempt from needing to document his finding for validation by other parties, and routinely used rank insults directed at those individuals who questioned his challenge to the then accepted consensus among the astronomic community. Galileo’s responses to asking for documentation of his claims wouldn’t be accepted in the scientific community today either - people who use rude responses and personal insults to requests to submit their findings for peer review are still fairly quickly herded off to the “quack” category by the scientific community, even if later scientists actually show their claims were correct. Galileo’s biggest problem was that he decided he’d rather get into a pissing contest with a cardinal than actually try to prove what he suspected.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.