Your sloppy "research" continues; Lorini criticism before the Castelli letter was not only public, but came when he was preaching on Old Souls Day :
In 1613, just as Galileo published his Letters on the Solar Spots, an openly Copernican writing, the first attack came from a Dominican friar and professor of ecclesiastical history in Florence, Father Lorini. Preaching on All Soul's Day, Lorini said that Copernican doctrine violated Scripture, which clearly places Earth, and not the Sun at the center of the universe. What, if Copernicus were right, would be the sense of Joshua 10:13 which says "So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven" or Isaiah 40:22 that speaks of "the heavens stretched out as a curtain" above "the circle of the earth"? Pressured later to apologize for his attack, Lorini later said that he "said a couple of words to the effect that the doctrine of Ipernicus [sic], or whatever his name is, was against Holy Scripture."
Galileo responded to criticism of his Copernican views in a December 1613 Letter to Castelli.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html
Could you try to get ONE fact right??
As has been already pointed out and ignored by you, the commission formed in 1616 to make a finding on heliocentricism contained all theologians and not one scientist. This group "examined the evidence" for 4 entire days before coming to the conclusion that heliocentrism was a HERESY. No actual mention of Galileo or his supposed "meddling in theology" was mentioned. Fosciarini's book was banned; did he have a bad attitude, too? Did he "meddle in theology"?
I think you owe the original poster an apology since you ridiculed his assertion that Galileo was threatened with torture. You had, again, never bothered to actually check the Church depositions where it is clearly stated he was.
The original discussion centered on whether the RCC's role in the 1600's in attempt to suppress heliocentrism showed a hostility to science and knowledge IF it was perceived that science and knowledge were contrary to the religious beliefs of the Church. The facts of the 1610-1616 period make it utterly clear to any reasonable person that the RCC banned heliocentrism for its disagreement with Scripture. You have spent a lot of time making personal attacks on Galileo and you're obviously very happy he was forced under threat of torture and death to recant his theories in 1633, but really that is all beside the point. The Church choose in 1616 to interfere in science and made bloody fools of themselves. And you continue to make a fool of yourself by asserting differently.
One last point: you've made a lot of assertions, mostly untrue about the Brahe system being "better" than the heliocentric model. Clearly the Brahe system failed Occam's Razor since it required everything to go around the Sun but the Earth and the Sun then to go around the Earth. Since there's utterly no logical reason for this to be so, it's pretty clear that the entire Brahe system was merely a creation to reconcile the obvious failures of the Ptolemic system with the misreading of Scripture that required the Earth to be stationary. This ad hoc system was never popular, as even the people in the Tycho Brahe society concede.
Lastly, you've talked a lot about "stellar parallaxes" and how the inability to see them with 1600's technology was supposedly a grave defect in the heliocentric system. In fact, Copernicius had proposed that the stars must be a great distance away which was the accepted explanation by heliocentrists (who, according to Kepler in 1597, were the majority of learned mathematicians in Europe). Obviously, they were right. Of course, the RCC wouldn't allow that idea either; his writings concerning the vast size of the universe were apparently one of the reasons that Bruno got burned at the stake! Thus, it's pretty clear that the Church was hostile to heliocentric theory in the early 1600's and it's not overly surprising that he declared it a heresy. What is surprising is that there are people 390 years later saying that was hunky dory and that the scientists of the day like Galileo and Kepler should have abandoned heliocentrism! Good thing they didn't; it would probably be a pain in the ass for NASA to figure the way to send rockets to Mars using those epicycles!
Originally posted by no1marauder"John Paul II instituted a pontifical commission to study the Galileo controversy. The commission explored the Galileo case from four distinct areas of study: exegetical, cultural, scientific and epistemological, and historical and juridical. Their work was finished in 1992. On October 31st, Cardinal Poupard delivered the final report during a papal audience. The fifth paragraph reads:
The Church choose in 1616 to interfere in science and made bloody fools of themselves. And you continue to make a fool of yourself by asserting differently.
Certain theologians, Galileo’s contemporaries, being heirs of a unitary concept of the world universally accepted until the dawn of the seventeenth century, failed to grasp the profound, non-literal meaning of the Scriptures when they described the physical structure of the created universe. This led them unduly to transpose a question of factual observation into the realm of faith.
It is in that historical and cultural framework, far removed from our own times, that Galileo’s judges, unable to dissociate faith from an age-old cosmology, believed quite wrongly that the adoption of the Copernican revolution, in fact not yet definitively proven, was such as to undermine Catholic tradition, and that it was their duty to forbid its being taught. This subjective error of judgment, so clear to us today, led them to a disciplinary measure from which Galileo had much to suffer. These mistakes must be frankly recognized, as you, Holy Father, have requested" (L’Osservatore Romano, November 1, 1992)."
http://www.daughtersofstpaul.com/johnpaulpapacy/meetjp/thepope/jpgalileo.html
Originally posted by Bosse de NageConservative Catholics like LH believe the Commission was wrong. Haven't you read?? It was all Galileo's fault for "meddling in theology" and trying to "force and coerce" the Church to accepting his ridiculous theories!🙄
"John Paul II instituted a pontifical commission to study the Galileo controversy. The commission explored the Galileo case from four distinct areas of study: exegetical, cultural, scientific and epistemological, and historical and juridical. Their work was finished in 1992. On October 31st, Cardinal Poupard delivered the final report during a papal au r 1, 1992)."
http://www.daughtersofstpaul.com/johnpaulpapacy/meetjp/thepope/jpgalileo.html
One of which apparently being the present Pope:
In a speech delivered in Parma, Italy, March 15, 1990, even Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger endorsed the opinion of philosopher P. Feyerabend against Galileo. Ratzinger stated:
“At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just”
http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_003_Galileo.html
(A nice conservative Catholic fantasy site; LH will luvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv it).
Originally posted by no1marauderNot when that "fact" seems to be in dispute. Don't you actually read what I write?
Your sloppy "research" continues; Lorini criticism before the Castelli letter was not only public, but came when he was preaching on Old Souls Day :
In 1613, just as Galileo published his Letters on the Solar Spots, an openly Copernican writing, the first attack came from a Dominican friar and professor of ecclesiastical history in Florence, Father Lo /ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html
Could you try to get ONE fact right??
EDIT: It's 'All Souls' Day', BTW.
Originally posted by no1marauderAs has been already pointed out and ignored by you, the commission formed in 1616 to make a finding on heliocentricism contained all theologians and not one scientist.
As has been already pointed out and ignored by you, the commission formed in 1616 to make a finding on heliocentricism contained all theologians and not one scientist. This group "examined the evidence" for 4 entire days before coming to the conclusion that heliocentrism was a HERESY. No actual mention of Galileo or his supposed "meddling in theology" wa ...[text shortened]... s of themselves. And you continue to make a fool of yourself by asserting differently.
If a Senate committee is convened to formulate a policy on, say, nuclear medicine, then it is not necessary that any of the members actually be scientists or doctors themselves. All we require is that they consulted the experts.
This group "examined the evidence" for 4 entire days before coming to the conclusion that heliocentrism was a HERESY.
Partly because there was no scientific proof for heliocentrism at the time.
No actual mention of Galileo or his supposed "meddling in theology" was mentioned.
That doesn't mean it wasn't a factor. History is not just about reading the official documents.
Fosciarini's book was banned; did he have a bad attitude, too? Did he "meddle in theology"?
Foscarini's book was published in 1615, by which time Galileo had already done most of the damage.
Note: Foscarini was never tried for heresy.
I think you owe the original poster an apology since you ridiculed his assertion that Galileo was threatened with torture.
Perhaps you're right. I've PM'ed him my apology.
Originally posted by no1marauderOne last point: you've made a lot of assertions, mostly untrue about the Brahe system being "better" than the heliocentric model. Clearly the Brahe system failed Occam's Razor since it required everything to go around the Sun but the Earth and the Sun then to go around the Earth.
One last point: you've made a lot of assertions, mostly untrue about the Brahe system being "better" than the heliocentric model. Clearly the Brahe system failed Occam's Razor since it required everything to go around the Sun but the Earth and the Sun then to go around the Earth. Since there's utterly no logical reason for this to be so, it's pretty clea the ass for NASA to figure the way to send rockets to Mars using those epicycles!
Occam's razor does not apply in the Tychonian vs. Galilean systems because both models have the same number of entities (planets, orbits etc.) Yes, the Galilean/Copernican system was more elegant, but that's a matter of aesthetics - not science or philosophy.
Mathematically, of course, the two models were equivalent (with respect to observations within the Solar System).
Lastly, you've talked a lot about "stellar parallaxes" and how the inability to see them with 1600's technology was supposedly a grave defect in the heliocentric system. In fact, Copernicius had proposed that the stars must be a great distance away which was the accepted explanation by heliocentrists (who, according to Kepler in 1597, were the majority of learned mathematicians in Europe). Obviously, they were right.
But they could not prove that either. Trying to prove one hypothesis by positing another is not science.
What is surprising is that there are people 390 years later saying that was hunky dory and that the scientists of the day like Galileo and Kepler should have abandoned heliocentrism! Good thing they didn't; it would probably be a pain in the ass for NASA to figure the way to send rockets to Mars using those epicycles!
The Tychonian system does not use epicycles.
Besides, the Earth is the centre for NASA's coordinate systems:
http://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/illustrations/galactic_navigation.html
http://www.sat-net.com/winorbit/help/defcoordinates.html
Which means, of course, that NASA navigation models assume the Sun orbits the Earth...
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNext paragraph:
"John Paul II instituted a pontifical commission to study the Galileo controversy. The commission explored the Galileo case from four distinct areas of study: exegetical, cultural, scientific and epistemological, and historical and juridical. Their work was finished in 1992. On October 31st, Cardinal Poupard delivered the final report during a papal au ...[text shortened]... r 1, 1992)."
http://www.daughtersofstpaul.com/johnpaulpapacy/meetjp/thepope/jpgalileo.html
The Galileo case has, in the words of John Paul II, become "a sort of myth." It was the symbol of the Church’s supposed opposition to scientific progress and the free search for truth. This myth has played a significant cultural role. While many scientists understand that the God of science is also the God of faith, many others still believe that the spirit of science and the rules of research are incompatible with the Christian faith. Science and faith seem to be fundamentally opposed. Yet these sad misunderstandings belong only to the past.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt certainly is interesting. I don't "luvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv" it, however.
One of which apparently being the present Pope:
In a speech delivered in Parma, Italy, March 15, 1990, even Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger endorsed the opinion of philosopher P. Feyerabend against Galileo. Ratzinger stated:
“At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was ...[text shortened]... y/A_003_Galileo.html
(A nice conservative Catholic fantasy site; LH will luvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv it).