23 Apr 11
Originally posted by AgergImpressive art work.
But are they even a 'good idea' (as opposed to perfect or optimal)? It seems to me, in a design sense, as good an idea as packing a bridge with dynamite with the assumption it will never detonate.
I've got a couple of menacing looking wisdom teeth having a mosey around my mouth right now - and if they elect to get a better view, the little bastids are going ...[text shortened]...
.|````````|._/
`\``./\```//
`.|..|`|``|.\
``\_/`.\_/```
````````````````
🙁
Kelly
26 Apr 11
Originally posted by Conrau KYes he was indeed and very directly. While being questioned in the Vatican he was reminded that if his answers were evasive then he might be questioned under torture, as was the practice in those holy times. This was at the time of the counter - reformation when the vatican was under political pressure to get tough.
Was he threatened? Is there actual evidence for this?
For academic sources I would have to get down my biographies from the shelves but it is not likely that would help you or me - who reads primary sources? The most readable book I recommend is about Galileo's Daughter by Dava Sobel and was a best seller not so far back. This describes the Kafkaesque trial procedures very well and vividly.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
01 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganYes he was indeed and very directly. While being questioned in the Vatican he was reminded that if his answers were evasive then he might be questioned under torture, as was the practice in those holy times.
Yes he was indeed and very directly. While being questioned in the Vatican he was reminded that if his answers were evasive then he might be questioned under torture, as was the practice in those holy times. This was at the time of the counter - reformation when the vatican was under political pressure to get tough.
For academic sources I would have to seller not so far back. This describes the Kafkaesque trial procedures very well and vividly.
Just to be clear, it isn't strictly speaking the Vatican which would have threatened him. The Vatican state did not exist yet. Certainly the papal states existed, the Holy See existed and the Roman curia existed. You ought to clarify whom you are referring to. Personally I do not think that even the Holy See had the power to torture; punitive measures like that would have belonged to secular authority, at least that is my intuition and I would welcome correction here.
For academic sources I would have to get down my biographies from the shelves but it is not likely that would help you or me - who reads primary sources?
I will happily read primary sources. Curial Latin is one of my favorites of leisurely reading.
01 May 11
Originally posted by Conrau KYou seem a bit stuck up and rather impressed with yourself. You are clearly lowering yourself when you indulge in these uneducated threads! My guess is you are here because the more learned circles have blackballed you and you have no where else to go.
[b]Yes he was indeed and very directly. While being questioned in the Vatican he was reminded that if his answers were evasive then he might be questioned under torture, as was the practice in those holy times.
Just to be clear, it isn't strictly speaking the Vatican which would have threatened him. The Vatican state did not exist yet. Certainly the ...[text shortened]...
I will happily read primary sources. Curial Latin is one of my favorites of leisurely reading.[/b]
01 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsi don't like him either. except i admit he is a pretty good scientist. and his books are much more well written than his discovery channel mockumentaries. the god delusion in my view is simply a series of proofs which all lead to the idea that god is not necessary for this universe to work. not that god isn't real. my view as a theist is that there is a god, and he designed the universe so well, it takes care of itself. however i cannot prove this view and therefore it has no place in scientifical debates
It is a bunch of garbage put out there to make money off
the gullible. In my opinion Dawkins is a degenerate.
01 May 11
Originally posted by Conrau Ksure. giordano bruno was burnt to the stake for refusing to rescind his claims. galileo was asked nicely to stop with the false rumors that upset god. because the church is that kind
[b]and galileo "admitted" under threats of torture by the church that his work on astronomy is wrong.
No. That is completely false. Galileo was never tortured and it was not Galileo's astronomy that was strictly contentious but his claim that it conflicted with Scripture.[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_comets_and_The_Assayer
By 1616 the attacks on the ideas of Copernicus had reached a head, and Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade the Catholic Church authorities not to ban Copernicus' ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre.
[...]
With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:
Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[50]
He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.[51] On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.
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.[52]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
01 May 11
Originally posted by Zahlanzisure. giordano bruno was burnt to the stake for refusing to rescind his claims. galileo was asked nicely to stop with the false rumors that upset god. because the church is that kind.
sure. giordano bruno was burnt to the stake for refusing to rescind his claims. galileo was asked nicely to stop with the false rumors that upset god. because the church is that kind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_comets_and_The_Assayer
By 1616 the attacks on the ideas of Copernicus had reached a head, and Galileo w ...[text shortened]... cation of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[52]
Bruno certainly was burnt at the stake. I do not deny that. I am just unaware of any evidence that Galileo himself was tortured or that he was threatened with torture. Apart from the obvious agonies of death by conflagration, I don't even know whether torture was used as a method of interrogation. This is certainly a popular myth; I just don't know whether it is true.
I am not saying here that Galileo had a pleasant life. He was confined to house arrest. I believe he was also denied burial in consecrated ground. He suffered ridicule and harassment too. All I am questioning is how plausible the threat of physical torture was.
02 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KThe following is from an article that points to it. The website is run by The Catholic Education Resource Center and was written by Catholic apologist PATRICK MADRID.
[b]sure. giordano bruno was burnt to the stake for refusing to rescind his claims. galileo was asked nicely to stop with the false rumors that upset god. because the church is that kind.
Bruno certainly was burnt at the stake. I do not deny that. I am just unaware of any evidence that Galileo himself was tortured or that he was threatened with tor and harassment too. All I am questioning is how plausible the threat of physical torture was.[/b]
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0033.html
But what about torture? While it's true that a decree issued by Pope Urban VIII instructed that Galileo "should be questioned as to his intentions and that he should be menaced with torture," no torture was ever carried out.
In an attempt to refute that Galileo was tortured, the above was acknowledged.
02 May 11
Originally posted by Conrau Kconrau, we are talking about the catholic church here. he was charged with heresy, the penalty for which was not anything pleasant. (burn at the stake in order to be purified). why do you need an official record to say "I, cardinal sparky, hereby formally threaten galileo with pointy sharp objects".
[b]sure. giordano bruno was burnt to the stake for refusing to rescind his claims. galileo was asked nicely to stop with the false rumors that upset god. because the church is that kind.
Bruno certainly was burnt at the stake. I do not deny that. I am just unaware of any evidence that Galileo himself was tortured or that he was threatened with tor ...[text shortened]... and harassment too. All I am questioning is how plausible the threat of physical torture was.[/b]
We can tell for sure he was threatened with torture. Because we know the circumstances how he came to be under house arrest. The following is again from wiki and in brackets are my comments
Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy",{aka- in danger of becoming firewood} namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" {here comes the torture part, what else would he have suffered other than torture if he chose not to abjure, curse and detest?} those opinions.[50]
He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.{aka - the organisation with the torture, aka the organisation you don't want to be held imprisoned "at its pleasure }[51] On the following day this was commuted to house arrest{why was it commuted? could it be because he recanted what he said? and why would he recant something he spent a lifetime advocating except from out of fear?}, which he remained under for the rest of his life.
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.[52]