14 Feb 06
i'm sorry. i brought up galileo in page 3 of this thread and it's gone on since.
as i started it please let me bottom line it neatly:
the church did interfere with scientific advancement (as was the original argument and reason for me bringing galileo into this) so there.
let it rest.
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerdepends on what you're doing, of course. In terms of planning a mission to the moon, the earth can be considered the centre of the universe. When geocentrism is used to explain the motions of the planets, or to plan a mission to Jupiter, it stinks!
Read the letters to Castelli and the Grand Duchess (they are easy enough to find on the Web) for yourself. They are most definitively not scientific papers. Theological papers, maybe, but not scientific.
And, btw, from the perspective of a modern physicist, heliocentrism is no more "correct" than geocentrism (Google "modern geocentrism"😉 - which makes perfect sense in Relativism.
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by powershakerNope. It's no more solid. You're just saying 'I don't know' in a different way. You cannot prove that God exists.
Actually, I think skeptics try everything they can do to disprove God, but they have no where to go with their assumptions. I've heard people on here saying "nothing" came out of "something" until plain sick and disgruntled when off the internet! It saddens me how some people do open their hearts to the love of Jesus Christ. 🙁 Just imagine nothing! ...[text shortened]... ll rather than say, "Uhhh Duhhh... I don't know. But, I know it wasn't God!" HAHA!
15 Feb 06
3 edits
Maybe it would help the discussion if you would answer the question posed by Moy:
Why Galileo was tried by the Inquisition?
To get to the "nub" of the matter, I would concede, for argument's sake, that there was a 1616 injunction and that Gailileo violated it with his Dialogue book. I am more concerned with why the 1616 injunction was issued in the first place IF it was "not primarily because Galileo supported Copernician heliocentricism" as ALL historians believe according to Moy.
Please give your answer and support it by reference to historical facts. Avoid "X says 1" unless what X is saying is a historical piece of evidence, not an opinion. Please also avoid your discussions concerning the supposed inadequacies of Galileo's scientific theories unless you can point to some evidence that heliocentricism was declared HERESY because of it's scientific defects rather than it's supposed conflict with Scripture.
Thank you.
BTW, while you're at it perhaps you'd present some evidence supporting these claims you made on page 4 of this thread:
LH: Galileo's "PR job" was printing pamphlets and having them distributed in churches across Europe; his PR job was in publicly insisting that the Church give formal assent to his theory.
17 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI'll get back to your questions in a while.
Maybe it would help the discussion if you would answer the question posed by Moy:
Why Galileo was tried by the Inquisition?
To get to the "nub" of the matter, I would concede, for argument's sake, that there was a 1616 injunction and that Gailileo violated it with his Dialogue book. I am more concerned with why the 1616 injunction was ...[text shortened]... R job was in publicly insisting that the Church give formal assent to his theory.
24 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderPlease give your answer and support it by reference to historical facts. Avoid "X says 1" unless what X is saying is a historical piece of evidence, not an opinion.
Maybe it would help the discussion if you would answer the question posed by Moy:
Why Galileo was tried by the Inquisition?
To get to the "nub" of the matter, I would concede, for argument's sake, that there was a 1616 injunction and that Gailileo violated it with his Dialogue book. I am more concerned with why the 1616 injunction was R job was in publicly insisting that the Church give formal assent to his theory.
I'm sorry to say this - but this is sheer hypocrisy. In the past, you have shown no compunctions whatsoever in citing the "opinions" of experts to form your case. Three examples spring readily to mind - Peters on the Inquisition and various (unnamed) Scripture scholars on the authorship of the Gospels and 2 Peter. For you to turn around and demand "historical facts" is using double standards.
Please also avoid your discussions concerning the supposed inadequacies of Galileo's scientific theories unless you can point to some evidence that heliocentricism was declared HERESY because of it's scientific defects rather than it's supposed conflict with Scripture.
1. They're not "supposed" inadequacies. Anyone with a high school science diploma (in my country, anyway) can see them.
2. It wasn't declared "HERESY" because of its scientific defects rather than its supposed conflict with Scripture. It was declared heresy because of its scientific defects and its supposed conflict with Scripture. I have already cited St. Bellarmine on this account, as well as pointed out that the 1633 condemnation lists both philosophical (i.e. scientific) and Scriptural objections.
Why Galileo was tried by the Inquisition?
...
I am more concerned with why the 1616 injunction was issued in the first place IF it was "not primarily because Galileo supported Copernician heliocentricism" as ALL historians believe according to Moy.
To understand the drivers behind historical events, you need to look at the historical context of those events. Here's an example - was the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand the primary cause of the First World War?
Why was the 1616 injunction issued? Formally, of course, it was because Galileo supported Copernican heliocentricism. But Catholics were free (though it wouldn't make them popular) to hold Copernican views for over seventy years until 1616. What changed? Or rather, what did Copernicanism represent to the Church hierarchy in the late 16th/early 17th century?
From a letter by Cardinal Bellarmine to Carmelite Provincial Foscarini (who publicly supported Galileo) dated 1615[1]:
For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers (LH: i.e. scientists) and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.
The Church is still coming out of its bruising encounter with the Reformation (Luther's 95 theses were published in 1517 and the Council of Trent countered Protestantism in 1545-1563)[2]. It's particularly sensitive on matters of Scriptural interpretation[3]:
... as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators.
It's undeniable that Galileo was "expounding the Scriptures" in his letters to Castelli and the Grand Duchess. It's also clear from those letters that Galileo is aware of the Council canon against private interpretation of Scripture. Why does he go into Scriptural interpretation at all?
You've argued that he's trying to defend himself against his critics. Yet, it is clear from his letters that he's not merely defending himself, he's asserting his intellectual superiority over them[4]:
Showing a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth they sought to deny and disprove the new things which, if they had cared to look for themselves, their own senses would have demonstrated to them. To this end they hurled various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly, and which were ill-suited to their purposes.
In a 1610 letter to Kepler, he says[5]:
We will not trouble ourselves about the abuse of the multitude, for against Jupiter even giants, to say nothing of pigmies, fight in vain.
It is hard to reconcile this attitude of Galileo's with the picture you've painted of him as a man fearing for his life. Instead, one sees a rather arrogant man who believes his expertise in mathematics entitles him to pass judgment on theological matters as well as insult theologians who question him. No wonder he made so many enemies.
Of course, none of this would've mattered if he could actually prove his theories as he claimed[6]:
I hold the sun to be situated motionless in the center of the revolution of the celestial orbs while the earth revolves about the sun. They know also that I support this position not only by refuting the arguments of Ptolemy and Aristotle, but by producing many counter-arguments; in particular, some which relate to physical effects whose causes can perhaps be assigned in no other way. In addition there are astronomical arguments derived from many things in my new celestial discoveries that plainly confute the Ptolemaic system while admirably agreeing with and confirming the contrary hypothesis.
In fact, Cardinal Bellarmine wrote[7]:
I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.
But, of course, Galileo couldn't actually demonstrate it. The wisest counsel came from Cardinal Bellarmine (whom you called a monster) himself through their mutual friend Msgr. Dini[8]:
With Bellarmine I spoke at length of the things you had written….And he said that as to Copernicus, there is no question of his book being prohibited; the worst that might happen, according to him, would be the addition of some material in the margins of that book to the effect that Copernicus had introduced his theory in order to save the appearances, or some such thing-just as others had introduced epicycles without thereafter believing in their existence. And with a similar precaution you may at any time deal with these matters. If things are fixed according to the Copernican system, it does not appear presently that they would have any greater obstacle in the Bible than the passage ‘[the sun] exults as a strong man to run his course,’ etc., which all expositors up to now have understood by attributions motion to the sun. And although I replied that this also could be explained as a concession or our ordinary forms of expression, I was told in answer that this was not a thing to be done in haste, just a s the condemnation of any of these opinions was not to be passionately hurried...
Galileo ignores the advice of Cardinal Bellarmine and goes on to write his letter to the Grand Duchess, which is circulated widely.
So, to answer your question as to why the 1616 injunction came about:
1. In the highly charged atmosphere of post-Reformation Europe, Copernicanism (as a cosmology, not a mathematical model) came to be seen as an attack on the faith, especially when it was accompanied by private interpretation of Scripture as with Galileo.
2a. Galileo's own arrogant manner and habit of personal insults against his opponents made him many enemies.
2b. He took no reasonable steps (as Cardinal Bellarmine suggested) to forestall/avoid the injunction.
2c. Instead, despite being aware of the Trent canon against private interpretation, he went ahead with writing exegetical works (which were subsequently widely distributed).
2d. He couldn't actually prove his theory.
Of course, this is no different from the reasons Prof. Moy listed.
BTW, while you're at it perhaps you'd present some evidence supporting these claims you made on page 4 of this thread
This was based on Johnston's article. Since it's difficult to prove it from a reading of primary texts (you're hardly going to see a "This was published and distributed all over Europe" line in one of them) and since I don't have access to the complete collection of correspondences and documents related to the Galileo affair (Antonio Favaro's Edizione Nazionale delle Opere di Galileo Galilei), I'll withdraw this assertion for now.
Regards,
LH
---
[1] http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1615bellarmine-letter.html
[2] http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blchron_xian_reform1.htm
[3] Cardinal Bellarmine's letter mentioned above.
[4] Letter to the Grand Duchess (1615):
http://www...
24 Feb 06
(contd.)
---
[1] http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1615bellarmine-letter.html
[2] http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blchron_xian_reform1.htm
[3] Cardinal Bellarmine's letter mentioned above.
[4] Letter to the Grand Duchess (1615):
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.html
[5] http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/lettergalileokeplar1610.html
[6] Lett. Grand Duchess.
[7] ibid.
[8] http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/letterdinitogalileo.html
25 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThere'sooooooooooooo much BS and lies in here, I don't feel it's of any use to respond in detail. I quoted Peters on the Inquistion when he gave reference to FACTS; I never said, as you do, that Peter's opinion should be believed because he is an "expert". I think you know what a sophist you are to equate these two very different ways of using the works of historical scholars.
[b]Please give your answer and support it by reference to historical facts. Avoid "X says 1" unless what X is saying is a historical piece of evidence, not an opinion.
I'm sorry to say this - but this is sheer hypocrisy. In the past, you have shown no compunctions whatsoever in citing the "opinions" of experts to form your case. Three examples etter to the Grand Duchess (1615):
http://www...[/b]
That's rest has been covered; the idea that the Church didn't like Galileo's theories because they lacked sufficient scientific proof is a pathetic lie that you keep parroting despite the mountain of evidence showing it is a complete falsehood. Bellermain's letters show only that he meant to apply an impossible standard of proof or call Galileo a heretic; the Church never applied such standards to any other physical theory and to my knowledge, never declared any other scientific theory a heresy. But you know this.
Screw the rest.
25 Feb 06
One last question since my level of disgust at your constant blaming of the victim in this matter precludes me listening to your same old BS you've been parroting through the whole thread:
If the problem was that Galileo was interpreting Scripture, how come the injunction of 1616 wasn't "Galileo you are not longer to interpret Scripture" but instead "Galileo you are not allowed to teach or write about heliocentrism"?
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderPerhaps because there was ALLREADY an injunction against this and he continued to do this anyway whenever he taught and wrote about heliocentrism?
If the problem was that Galileo was interpreting Scripture, how come the injunction of 1616 wasn't "Galileo you are not longer to interpret Scripture" but instead "Galileo you are not allowed to teach or write about heliocentrism"?
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThere'sooooooooooooo much BS and lies in here, I don't feel it's of any use to respond in detail.
There'sooooooooooooo much BS and lies in here, I don't feel it's of any use to respond in detail. I quoted Peters on the Inquistion when he gave reference to FACTS; I never said, as you do, that Peter's opinion should be believed because he is an "expert". I think you know what a sophist you are to equate these two very different ways of using the works ...[text shortened]... red any other scientific theory a heresy. But you know this.
Screw the rest.
You know what, I'm beginning to think you don't actually know the meaning of the word 'lie'/'liar'. You seem to use it as a catch-all insult.
All of my assertions are directly supported by the Internet-domain primary texts themselves, forget the consensus of the experts.
I quoted Peters on the Inquistion when he gave reference to FACTS
Actually you quoted his "opinion" (I prefer the term 'conclusion' when dealing with experts) that the Inquisition influenced secular legal processes for the worse. You never provided any primary evidence for that.
Besides, I gave three instances. Why did you ignore the other two?
Bellermain's letters show only that he meant to apply an impossible standard of proof or call Galileo a heretic
What "impossible standard of proof"? Now you're just making history up.
That Bellarmine didn't intend to call Galileo a heretic is clear not only from Msgr. Dini's letter and his own letter to Foscarini, but also from the fact that he wrote a public letter after the 1616 injunction to clear Galileo's name when people thought he had been convicted of heresy.
the Church never applied such standards to any other physical theory
What "such standards"?
I'm going to take a page from your book and ask you to provide historical evidence that the Church had "impossible" standards of proof for Galileo's theory. If not, then please stop repeating it.
Most scientists have the good sense (and integrity) to prove their theories before asserting it's fact. Galileo didn't.
Screw the rest.
Sure, why not? If you can't get the evidence and the experts to agree with you, why bother with them, right?
25 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou're a liar about Peters and about everything else. You're a disgrace.
[b]There'sooooooooooooo much BS and lies in here, I don't feel it's of any use to respond in detail.
You know what, I'm beginning to think you don't actually know the meaning of the word 'lie'/'liar'. You seem to use it as a catch-all insult.
All of my assertions are directly supported by the Internet-domain primary texts themselves, forget nce and the experts to agree with you, why bother with them, right?[/b]
Peters gave 6 historical areas where the Inquistion was more unfavorable in its procedures than the Contintental system. Those were not his opinion; those were fact. You even conceded it, you lying idiot!
The timeline demolishes your absurd argument that Galileo's letters (which you untruthfully claimed were disseminated in "Churches across Europe" - another lie) were the cause of his being hauled before the Inquistion; he was being denounced and investigated prior to writing them. You know this but choose to continue to lie.
No scientist ever "proved" their theories; that is impossible as any scientist will tell you. Thus, you either don't understand science at all or are merely lying.
Most of your post was a continued attack on the character of Galileo. That is disgusting and loathsome. You hate Galileo because his case shows the irrationality, pettiness and viciousness of the Church in the 1600's. Your piece of trash RCC wouldn't even allow him to be buried in his family crypt for 75 years after his death! That is what monsters they were. And all your revisionist lies and twisting of the truth can't change that.
25 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderPeters gave 6 historical areas where the Inquistion was more unfavorable in its procedures than the Contintental system. Those were not his opinion; those were fact.
You're a liar about Peters and about everything else. You're a disgrace.
Peters gave 6 historical areas where the Inquistion was more unfavorable in its procedures than the Contintental system. Those were not his opinion; those were fact. You even conceded it, you lying idiot!
The timeline demolishes your absurd argument that Galile they were. And all your revisionist lies and twisting of the truth can't change that.
Really? Let's look at some of his "facts":
1. "The early personnel of the inquisitions, then, mark one difference in ecclesiastical inquisitorial procedure." (p.66)
Here's his "evidence" for this assertion (p.66):
... the early inquisitors seem not to have been particularly expert in legal procedure (the 'professional' inquisitor, with some training at least in the legal procedures of the inquisitions themselves and perhaps some formal legal training in canon law, appears only toward the end of the thirteenth century and the beginning of the fourteenth), appears to have led the new judges of heresy to employ the most drastic aspects of the inquisitorial procedure, often without understanding or appreciating its conventional safeguards for the defendant ...
See where he is making a professional judgment on historical data? Where's the primary evidence for these assertions?
2. "A third is their customary restriction of the aid of counsel for the defendant." (p.66)
This topic is not mentioned anywhere else in the whole section. Needless to say, no primary evidence is provided. Also, notice where he makes the professional historian's judgment?
3. "A fifth was the relaxation of the rules of evidence and the greater weight given to some indicia, particularly in the area of facial expressions, behaviour, apparent nervousness, and so on." (pp.66-67)
Once again, no evidence is proferred for this assertion.
I could go on with the other four (he presents seven areas, not six). At every stage, Peters makes professional judgments and presents his conclusions (what you call "opinion" ) without showing the primary evidence from which he made those conclusions.
For you to cite a historian who presents his conclusions in this manner and then to criticise my sources is just double standards.
BTW, you've still not said anything about the other two instances I provided of you relying on expert "opinion" alone.
You even conceded it, you lying idiot!
Of course I conceded it - because Peters is an expert in the field and because there is widespread acceptance of his conclusions. Not because he presented the primary evidence to me and showed me how he reasoned out his conclusions.
The timeline demolishes your absurd argument that Galileo's letters (which you untruthfully claimed were disseminated in "Churches across Europe" - another lie) were the cause of his being hauled before the Inquistion; he was being denounced and investigated prior to writing them.
I didn't "untruthfully" claim that Galileo's letters were distributed in Churches across Europe - I obtained that from Johnston. I withdrew the claim because I couldn't satisfy your ridiculous request for primary evidence for each and every one of my sources' assertions.
How was he being "investigated" prior to writing his letters? (You think I'm about to let you get away with unsubstantiated assertions after all the abuse you've given me?) Who was investigating him in 1613 when he wrote his Letter to Castelli?
And who was denouncing him? You claimed that Lorini "PUBLICLY" denounced Galileo prior to 1613 - but your Law School website is the only one that makes that claim. Two other sources (neither of which are sympathetic to the Church) identify Lorini's criticism as private. And that makes a big difference - you don't need to launch a public counter-attack (and his letters are not just "defences" - they make it a point to insult his critics) to a private criticism.
That his letters led to his being "hauled" before the Inquisition should be obvious even to you - Lorini et. al. submitted a copy of his Letter to Castelli to the Inquisition as evidence.
And, BTW, stop using the term "the cause" so casually. A historical event will have a number of causes - not just one.
No scientist ever "proved" their theories; that is impossible as any scientist will tell you.
Every scientist has to "prove" his theories before they are accepted by his peers as empirically established. Of course, scientific proof isn't logical proof. In empirical science, the proof consists of experimental demonstration and verification. A new theory must either explain available experimental/empirical data better than established theories, explain known anomalies or gaps in established theories or make predictions that can be established by experimentation or observation.
Most of your post was a continued attack on the character of Galileo. That is disgusting and loathsome.
Why? Because I've disturbed your mythical hagiography of one of history's complex characters?
The character of Galileo was a critical cause to his downfall. Most historians agree (they might disagree as to whether it was the primary or most important factor). Any reasonable person who reads his letters and examines the events will conclude the same.
You hate Galileo because ...
I don't "hate" Galileo. I only hate the fact that he's been turned into some kind of secular martyr and saint by people who can't seem to appreciate that History isn't always black-and-white; it's more complicated than that.
And all your revisionist lies and twisting of the truth can't change that.
Are the historians who specialise in the Galileo affair also engaging in "revisionist lies and twisting of the truth"?