Reopening the case against Galileo
- Thread starter Astropolis
- Start date
Hi,
A significant, but not the most significant part of the position on Galileo:
--------------------------------
What is the church's position now?
Even after the Galileo trial, the Copernican system was taught in Catholic schools; but it was presented as a mathematical system, not a philosophical description of the universe. By the mid 1700s, even that stricture was lifted, though Galileo’s books themselves were listed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) for another half century.
When Pope Leo XIII wrote on the importance of science and reason, he essentially embraced the philosophical principles put forth by Galileo, and many statements by Popes and the Church over the years have expressed admiration for Galileo. For example, Galileo was specifically singled out for praise by Pope Pius XII in his address to the International Astronomical Union in 1952.
Pope John Paul II named a commission to investigate again the Galileo affair; after the work of Galileo commission was completed, Pope John Paul II’s discourse to the Pontifical Academy of science in 1992 stated that Galileo’s sufferings at the hands of some individuals and church institutions were tragic and inescapable, and a consequence of a mutual incomprehension in those times between church theologians and the new scientists such as Galileo. To be clear, science as we know it was just being born and not even scientists of those times could comprehend fully what was happening. The Church officially apologized to Galileo in 2000. You can see Pope John Paul II’s discourse of 1992 at:
DISCORSO DI GIOVANNI PAOLO II AI PARTECIPANTI ALLA SESSIONE PLENARIA DELLA PONTIFICIA ACCADEMIA DELLE SCIENZE
Was Galileo an atheist?
No, few people were in those days. In a private letter of Jan 20, 1610, Galileo writes: “I am infinitely grateful to God who has deigned to choose me alone to be the first to observe such marvelous things which have lain hidden for all ages past.” Galileo had two daughters, and both became religious sisters.
----------------------------
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .
A significant, but not the most significant part of the position on Galileo:
--------------------------------
What is the church's position now?
Even after the Galileo trial, the Copernican system was taught in Catholic schools; but it was presented as a mathematical system, not a philosophical description of the universe. By the mid 1700s, even that stricture was lifted, though Galileo’s books themselves were listed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) for another half century.
When Pope Leo XIII wrote on the importance of science and reason, he essentially embraced the philosophical principles put forth by Galileo, and many statements by Popes and the Church over the years have expressed admiration for Galileo. For example, Galileo was specifically singled out for praise by Pope Pius XII in his address to the International Astronomical Union in 1952.
Pope John Paul II named a commission to investigate again the Galileo affair; after the work of Galileo commission was completed, Pope John Paul II’s discourse to the Pontifical Academy of science in 1992 stated that Galileo’s sufferings at the hands of some individuals and church institutions were tragic and inescapable, and a consequence of a mutual incomprehension in those times between church theologians and the new scientists such as Galileo. To be clear, science as we know it was just being born and not even scientists of those times could comprehend fully what was happening. The Church officially apologized to Galileo in 2000. You can see Pope John Paul II’s discourse of 1992 at:
DISCORSO DI GIOVANNI PAOLO II AI PARTECIPANTI ALLA SESSIONE PLENARIA DELLA PONTIFICIA ACCADEMIA DELLE SCIENZE
Was Galileo an atheist?
No, few people were in those days. In a private letter of Jan 20, 1610, Galileo writes: “I am infinitely grateful to God who has deigned to choose me alone to be the first to observe such marvelous things which have lain hidden for all ages past.” Galileo had two daughters, and both became religious sisters.
----------------------------
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .
Upvote
0
Hi,
This is interesting:
-----------------------------
Sentence
On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."[39]The original report document was made widely available in 2014.[40]
At a meeting of the cardinals of the Inquisition on the following day, Pope Paul V instructed Bellarmine to deliver this result to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions; should Galileo resist the decree, stronger action would be taken. On February 26, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered,
to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.
—The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616.[3]
-------------------------
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .
This is interesting:
-----------------------------
Sentence
On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."[39]The original report document was made widely available in 2014.[40]
At a meeting of the cardinals of the Inquisition on the following day, Pope Paul V instructed Bellarmine to deliver this result to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions; should Galileo resist the decree, stronger action would be taken. On February 26, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered,
to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.
—The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616.[3]
-------------------------
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .
Upvote
0
Hi,
------------
In late 1614 or early 1615, one of Caccini's fellow Dominicans, Niccolò Lorini, acquired a copy of Galileo's letter to Castelli. Lorini and other Dominicans at the Convent of San Marco considered the letter of doubtful orthodoxy, in part because it may have violated the decrees of the Council of Trent:
...to check unbridled spirits, [the Holy Council] decrees that no one relying on his own judgement shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which the holy mother Church... has held or holds...
—Decree of the Council of Trent (1545–1563). Quoted in Langford, 1992.[23]
The Council of Trent (1545–63) sitting in the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. The Roman Inquisitionsuspected Galileo of violating the decrees of the Council. Museo Diocesano Tridentino, Trento.
Lorini and his colleagues decided to bring Galileo's letter to the attention of the Inquisition. In February 1615 Lorini accordingly sent a copy to the Secretary of the Inquisition, Cardinal Paolo Emilio Sfondrati, with a covering letter critical of Galileo's supporters:[24]
All our Fathers of the devout Convent of St. Mark feel that the letter contains many statements which seem presumptuous or suspect, as when it states that the words of Holy Scripture do not mean what they say; that in discussions about natural phenomena the authority of Scripture should rank last... [the followers of Galileo] were taking it upon themselves to expound the Holy Scripture according to their private lights and in a manner different from the common interpretation of the Fathers of the Church...
—Letter from Lorini to Cardinal Sfrondato, Inquisitor in Rome, 1615. Quoted in Langford, 1992[23]
On March 19, Caccini arrived at the Inquisition's offices in Rome to denounce Galileo for his Copernicanism and various other alleged heresies supposedly being spread by his pupils.[25]
-------------
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .
------------
In late 1614 or early 1615, one of Caccini's fellow Dominicans, Niccolò Lorini, acquired a copy of Galileo's letter to Castelli. Lorini and other Dominicans at the Convent of San Marco considered the letter of doubtful orthodoxy, in part because it may have violated the decrees of the Council of Trent:
...to check unbridled spirits, [the Holy Council] decrees that no one relying on his own judgement shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which the holy mother Church... has held or holds...
—Decree of the Council of Trent (1545–1563). Quoted in Langford, 1992.[23]
The Council of Trent (1545–63) sitting in the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. The Roman Inquisitionsuspected Galileo of violating the decrees of the Council. Museo Diocesano Tridentino, Trento.
Lorini and his colleagues decided to bring Galileo's letter to the attention of the Inquisition. In February 1615 Lorini accordingly sent a copy to the Secretary of the Inquisition, Cardinal Paolo Emilio Sfondrati, with a covering letter critical of Galileo's supporters:[24]
All our Fathers of the devout Convent of St. Mark feel that the letter contains many statements which seem presumptuous or suspect, as when it states that the words of Holy Scripture do not mean what they say; that in discussions about natural phenomena the authority of Scripture should rank last... [the followers of Galileo] were taking it upon themselves to expound the Holy Scripture according to their private lights and in a manner different from the common interpretation of the Fathers of the Church...
—Letter from Lorini to Cardinal Sfrondato, Inquisitor in Rome, 1615. Quoted in Langford, 1992[23]
On March 19, Caccini arrived at the Inquisition's offices in Rome to denounce Galileo for his Copernicanism and various other alleged heresies supposedly being spread by his pupils.[25]
-------------
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .
Upvote
0
Hi,
If one only looks at the published words, they are a very unfortunate set of words used against Galileo.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .
If one only looks at the published words, they are a very unfortunate set of words used against Galileo.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .
Upvote
0
The Cadet
SO COOL
- Apr 29, 2010
- 6,290
- 4,743
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Oh? Care to show your work? You can use parallax and triangulation to determine distances with great accuracy here on earth. You can do the experiment yourself if you have a wide open space. It's pretty great, actually.
Again, why would you call these proven facts "assumptions"? We don't simply assume that the earth is rotating around the sun, just like we don't assume the distance from the earth to the sun, just like we don't assume how far away neptune is, just like we don't assume anything in astronomy. These aren't assumptions.
Yes, they have been, and you can measure them yourself with a good telescope. Indeed, this is kind of the cool thing about astronomy. If you doubt anything in modern astronomy, you can actually check it yourself. It doesn't take a massive amount of expertise, you just have to know some basic trigonometry and physics and a bargain bin telescope, and you can do all the same experiments the scientists of old did yourself and check their work. It's not like building a spaceship; you don't need a massive operating budget to repeat these experiments.
Upvote
0
ananda
Early Buddhist
This is an assumption because nobody is on record as stating that he or she has personally seen the earth rotating around the sun as in the heliocentric model.
Again, this is all based on the assumption that the earth rotates around the sun. Measurements would be radically different if this assumption was not entered into the equation.Yes, they have been, and you can measure them yourself with a good telescope. Indeed, this is kind of the cool thing about astronomy. If you doubt anything in modern astronomy, you can actually check it yourself. It doesn't take a massive amount of expertise, you just have to know some basic trigonometry and physics and a bargain bin telescope, and you can do all the same experiments the scientists of old did yourself and check their work. It's not like building a spaceship; you don't need a massive operating budget to repeat these experiments.
Upvote
0
- Jun 13, 2015
- 10,053
- 9,608
- 47
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
Wonderful, where else can you find people in the 21st century arguing about whether the earth orbits the sun. Now all it needs is someone to argue the world is flat
Upvote
0
The Cadet
SO COOL
- Apr 29, 2010
- 6,290
- 4,743
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
No, I'm sorry, it's still not assumed. Just because we cannot directly observe something does not mean it is an assumption.
Wonderful, where else can you find people in the 21st century arguing about whether the earth orbits the sun. Now all it needs is someone to argue the world is flat
Keep reading, someone did.
Upvote
0
ananda
Early Buddhist
No, I'm sorry, as far as I'm concerned, any "data" that is not the result of first-hand experience is a type of faith based on an assumption, not belief and trust based on knowledge. But this is getting into the realm of philosophy.
You have faith that a moving earth revolves around a moving sun. I have faith that the sun revolves around a stationary earth.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Hi,
In a similar way, that you are assumed to exist, in what we see and what repeats in you, all is learned in science. It is by some form of measurement.
As you repetitively exist and respond, thus giving me and others a measurement of you, so does the sun, and the planets and the stars, radioactivity, all give us measurements.
An assumption, is saying, assuming that I, you, the sun, the stars, exist, and we are not in one continual dream state, or hallucinating, then these other things are also true.
Even God, has some measure. That Book, has measure.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .
Upvote
0
ananda
Early Buddhist
Indeed, and everyone possesses their own particular way of interpreting various data, discarding or accepting various experiments or data based on their personal belief systems.
Heliocentrists have faith in NASA's data, etc. - much of which I deny as conflicting lies. I instead have faith in the data provided in the Michelson-Gale experiments, in the Sagnac experiment, and in "Airey's failure", all which proves to me a fixed earth ... data which most heliocentrists deny.
Even the multiple alleged revelations of "God" - some deny this scripture, others deny that scripture, and so on.
Again, this is getting into the realm of philosophy - how one "knows" something is right or not.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hi,
And all those who interpret their data in the way they choose, do not normally enter science as a work or as a profession.
Honesty, is enforced in Science, thus those cold fusion boys will never have a valid job in science ever again. The Marlboro researchers, when they released their concusions on nicotine and health and addiction, they instantly would never have another job, as they lied.
I never get to pick my assumption. I am not allowed to assume. No one I work for is allowed to assume. Yes, some Ph.D.'s lose their jobs because of assumptions, which are never legal the way you are talking of asumptions.
I am a scientist, but I cannot even say that, as that is an assumption, in that I am assuming that I am a scientist. So, whenever I use that term most accurately, I say this. I am a scientist of sorts. And I say that so everyone knows in my field, that I claim no supremacy in thoughts words, nor with those outside of my field, do I claim any sort of authority such that anyone should listen to me, just because I speak, and for no other reason.
Science does not assume. It enforces honesty. And, yet like in the real world, there are not enough cops and judges and jails to handle the dishonest ones even there. Work does though.
Work in science is the cops, is the judge, is the jail or not. Work is. If what I do, works, if what I say from my data works, if what I say from my data can be proven to be true by all the tests that exist, then the cops there, the judge there, and the jails there treat me accordingly.
The cops accept me. The judges accept me. And the jails I don't want to tell you about, for they are the place held for those that oppose what Science Really is.
Science and proven Chrisitian wise, is both a command by God in subding the earth in Genesis 1:28, (Yes I suspect that you don't hold to that book, that way., but that too is proven, like the way you are proven to exist to me.), and it is a Blessing, it is "What God has done."
There are not personal opinions used in Science. It is enforced this: "Taking a guess and trying to prove your guess wrong." And those guesses that cannot be proven wrong, and your friends cannot prove wrong, and the world cannot prove wrong, those work and are "What God has done."
You and I are communicating on these computers, and in order to do that, Someone had to follow God's Command from the Blessing of Subdue the Earth, in Genesis 1:28. It is not my opinion really that this computer works. Every guess I take, that you aren't real. That this computer isn't real, fails. It fails when I try to prove those guesses wrong.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Blank Stair
1 Peter 3:16
Galileo said:
"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go." Galileo Galilei
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
ananda
Early Buddhist
The problem is, by the time the "scientists" and their studies are discovered to be frauds (usually years afterwards), massive amounts of money would have likely already been funneled into supporting their faked results already, and public policy would likely have been dramatically altered to the point that it would largely be irreversable.
I can imagine:
1. Pay off "scientists" to release false data,
2. Use said data to manipulate the public, public discussions, government policy, etc.
3. Reap immense profits off of such manipulation,
4. When "scientists" are found out, they're "fired" and paid off generously by those who hired them
5. Enjoy ill-gotten profits, and celebrate the change in public policy
6. Wash, rinse, repeat
Upvote
0
The Cadet
SO COOL
- Apr 29, 2010
- 6,290
- 4,743
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
No, we don't. This is something you keep on saying, but repeating it doesn't make it less wrong. Every single experiment that led to the conclusion of heliocentrism can be done with a cheap, consumer-grade telescope and a clear sky. Most of them can be done with a decent pair of binoculars. I explicitly keep using examples like the phases of venus or the retrograde motion of planets because it would be trivial for you to go out and fact-check them, and because they wonderfully illustrate how we know what we know. So when you say this:
I know it's wrong, because none of this has anything to do with some nebulous "they". It's a bunch of simple, trivially repeatable observations.
And by the way, what possible point would there be to this conspiracy? Why on earth would anyone try to fool everyone into thinking that the heliocentric model is correct?
Upvote
0
Think about it. If there were no time, or no time as we know it here near earth (solar system and vicinity) then our space and time that we know that is woven together would only exist here. Now you go and take some part of THAT, such as some spacial distance the earth moved in 6 months, and declare that that line of measure is one line in a measure to the stars! That means that the other lines in the triangle measurement have to represent time and space exactly as that base line! Since they would not if there was no time out there the method is worthless, useless and comically wrong. Get it?
Neither are they relevant to the distant universe! They are our planets and sun. OURS! Made for US! They are HERE!
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Hi,
No. Actually the way it works in science, is the ones who lie, if they are powerful enough, and some were and have been, the honest scientists, which is 85% of them, just bide their time, until they die, or until someone else exposes their dishonesty, which removes them rather instantly, normally.
Yes, it seems that 85% of those in political posts are in fact, what a scienitist of sorts, would call dismantler's of government, as that is what the research has shown so far to be the prevalence of dishonesty in Public Officials, (85%), but in science, high science and maybe all the lower forms, the honesty is very high. It is roughly 85% of them are impeccably honest.
And when I raise my head, all politicians and some corporate leaders, do want me gone, when I know something and I tell the world about it. The problem for me is understanding. If I was understood, and if all the scientists who belong to the 85% group were understood, then those who oppose you and others, would all be gone fairly quickly.
People in general, do not understand what I or other scientists say, even when we are trying very hard to be understood. I have seen this. I wish it were not so.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .
Upvote
0
Similar threads
