Reopening the case against Galileo

[chilehed]

?.The problem is that once there were people who, quite sincerely, believed that God was calling them to attack Galileo, even threaten him with violence, because they believed that scripture commanded a geocentric model of the universe.

This summary of the Galileo affair is so deeply flawed and simplistic that it's nearly impossible to correct in an online forum. Galileo was highly honored in Rome until he began to mock everyone who wasn't convinced of his theory, and the primary reason people weren't convinced was that he had insufficient evidence to prove that he was right. And in fact, he was wrong in a number of ways; for example, he insisted that orbital paths must be circular. Geocentrism was consistent with what people had observed since the beginning of time, geocentric models existed that had good predictive value, the parallax that heliocentrism predicts was unobservable at the time, and oh, by the way, geocentrism seemed to be implied by Sacred Scripture. At the time, the prudent course was to not blindly accept Galileo's model as anything more than a model, and, in fact, Cardinal Bellarmine agreed that if sufficient evidence arose in support of it then it would be necessary to re-examine the scriptural texts to understand how it was that they had been misunderstood. Galileo's biggest problem was that he was an abrasive, arrogant and condescending jerk who didn't have enough common sense to deal charitably with the many benefactors he had in the Catholic Church. Certainly, those benefactors in turn did not always respond in a blameless manner, and yes, some of them really believed (mistakenly) that heliocentrism was a heresy. But in fact, the greatest opposition to his theory came not from within Catholic Church, but from Protestants.

But it is a non sequitur claim: that to believe in the special creation of each individual species means one must also reject heliocentism (which isn't true either, really), modern astronomy and the existence of man-made satellites. You might as well claim that to reject the idea of man-made global warming means one must also reject the reality of nuclear energy. It quite simply does not follow.

 

[Loudmouth]

This summary of the Galileo affair is so deeply flawed and simplistic that it's nearly impossible to correct in an online forum. Galileo was highly honored in Rome until he began to mock everyone who wasn't convinced of his theory, and the primary reason people weren't convinced was that he had insufficient evidence to prove that he was right.

Cardinal Bellarmine was the head Cardinal in charge of Galileo's trial, and he made no bones about it.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter to Foscarini (1615)

There is zero doubt that Galileo was put on trial for holding to a position that was seen as heresy and against scripture.

 

[chilehed]

Cardinal Bellarmine was the head Cardinal in charge of Galileo's trial, and he made no bones about it.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter to Foscarini (1615)

There is zero doubt that Galileo was put on trial for holding to a position that was seen as heresy and against scripture.

I said nothing that implies otherwise (although most people only think they understand the nature of the charges). What I said was that the OP's summary of the facts was deeply flawed and simplistic, which is true.

Furthermore, you're cherry picking from the letter, and ignoring the context in which it was written. See the last paragraph:

"Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown to me . . . . and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers. I add that the one who wrote, "The sun also riseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose," was Solomon, who not only spoke inspired by God, but was a man above all others wise and learned in the human sciences and in the knowledge of created things; he received all this wisdom from God; therefore it is not likely that he was affirming something that was contrary to truth already demonstrated or capable of being demonstrated."
​

Bellarmine specifically says that he could believe the theory if good evidence was presented for it, that in that case he'd have to go back and reevaluate what God was intending to convey by the words of Sacred Scripture, and that in the absense of such evidence it was safest to stay with the historic understanding. Hence, his affirmation in the second paragraph.

But this really is off-topic, I think. If the OP wishes to discuss it further, then I'd be happy to do so with him.

 

[Loudmouth]

I said nothing that implies otherwise. What I said was that the OP's summary of the facts was deeply flawed and simplistic, which is true.

Furthermore, you're cherry picking from the letter, and ignoring the context in which it was written. See the last paragraph:

"Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown to me . . . . and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers. I add that the one who wrote, "The sun also riseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose," was Solomon, who not only spoke inspired by God, but was a man above all others wise and learned in the human sciences and in the knowledge of created things; he received all this wisdom from God; therefore it is not likely that he was affirming something that was contrary to truth already demonstrated or capable of being demonstrated."
​

That is exactly the argument that modern creationists make, that we can't disagree with the ancient authors because they were inspired by God.

Bellarmine specifically says that he could believe the theory if good evidence was presented for it, that in that case he'd have to go back and reevaluate what God was intending to convey by the words of Sacred Scripture, and that in the absense of such evidence it was safest to stay with the historic understanding. Hence, his affirmation in the second paragraph.

And for creationists, there is no evidence that would ever change their mind.

 

[chilehed]

That is exactly the argument that modern creationists make, that we can't disagree with the ancient authors because they were inspired by God.

And for creationists, there is no evidence that would ever change their mind.

Either you really aren't paying attention to what Bellarmine wrote, or you just violated the law of non-contradiction. Or perhaps you did both, it's difficult to follow such incoherence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Either you really aren't paying attention to what Bellarmine wrote, or you just violated the law of non-contradiction. Or perhaps you did both, it's difficult to follow such incoherence.

What did Bellarmine convict Galileo of? Heresy or not having enough evidence for heliocentrism?

 

[dad]

If you believe that scripture commands you to believe in special creation, you should also, on the same grounds, believe that the earth is the centre of the universe, discard every astronomical observation made since the 17th century, and believe that satnav and satellite TV simply don't exist.

Any takers?

Earth is the center of the universe. That is news? The observations do not matter at all. The whole universe you see is going to pass away one day. God will make a new heavens and earth and move here to live forever. It doesn't get more central than that!

 

[joshua 1 9]

How so?

Invent a machine that would detach us from the earth. We could then travel over 1000 mph by not moving with the earth. We could go from here to Hong Kong in half the time it currently takes.

 

[joshua 1 9]

. God will make a new heavens and earth and move here to live forever. It doesn't get more central than that!

The new heaven and the new earth will be at the end of the 1000 year reign of Christ.

 

[dad]

The new heaven and the new earth will be at the end of the 1000 year reign of Christ.

True. Your point then is...??

If you are getting at the fact that the world of Adam and maybe Noah may have looked different, and even the bodies in the heavens appeared different to some extent...well, that is likely!

 

[paulm50]

The RCC is and was then all about control and making money. Remember this is the same church that burned people at the stake for trying to translate the bible, decided if a King could or could not divorce (ot on religious grounds, it was on the grounds of increasing its control), a church who started the Thirty Year War to maintain control, and a church who shielded child abusers and moved them to another parish to abuse again.

So locking up Galileo, which was its second choice, was nothing much.

It would only take a drop in the bucket - 4% of the 2014 US budget ($153 billion) - to go (allegedly) back to the moon, using the 1969 budget factored for inflation.

It's my opinion we would of been back to the Moon if it was worth the effort. We're putting satellites up practically by the week, because it's worth it. They probably examined the rocks and can't make a case to return.

 

[Chris B]

The point is that the attack on Galileo was conducted by people who completely sincerely believed that scripture commanded them to believe in a geocentric universe.

This terrifies me regularly.
Neither complete sincerity or absolute faith has any direct connection with something being true or false, but not many holding a position in complete sincerity or absolute faith find it easy to grasp that, even as a valid hypothetical.

This immediately sets up the more than hypothetical situation of two or more people holding contrasting and contradictory beliefs each being completely sincere in what they believe, and/or having unshakable faith in such.
Also quite common: an individual holding their conclusions sincerely, when faced with someone arriving at different conclusions, can then infer that the latter must have been arrived at insincerely.

If sincere belief or absolute faith made things so we'd be living in a very different universe.

Chris

 

[Michael]

This terrifies me regularly.
Neither complete sincerity or absolute faith has any direct connection with something being true or false, but not many holding a position in complete sincerity or absolute faith find it easy to grasp that, even as a valid hypothetical.

This immediately sets up the more than hypothetical situation of two or more people holding contrasting and contradictory beliefs each being completely sincere in what they believe, and/or having unshakable faith in such.
Also quite common: an individual holding their conclusions sincerely, when faced with someone arriving at different conclusions, can then infer that the latter must have been arrived at insincerely.

If sincere belief or absolute faith made things so we'd be living in a very different universe.

Chris

True. That also explains why Catholics and Southern Baptists tend to come to *different conclusions* as to the age of the Earth, and the validity of evolutionary theory.

 

[ananda]

The whole discussion is a scam. Just like the flat earth myth was and continues to be a scam.

How is the flat earth a scam?

From what I've read, multiple railroad engineers have denied the need for factoring in the curvature of the earth in designing and constructing rail lines, and have always created them straight and level/flat - no matter the distance. IMO that is a good argument for a flat earth.

The spherical earth is a scam, and the case against Galileo should be reopened

 

[Split Rock]

So when a judge sides with the "scientific consensus", just like the Catholic Church, and says that a state must stop saying that there might be some problems with evolution, not that it must stop teaching that there are problems, just saying there might be, that not similar? I find your reasoning astounding.

The issue was teaching non-science, religious -based ideas in public school science classes. In particular, "Creation Science," and Intelligent Design. Some states have passed legislation based on teaching "problems" with evolution, and those haven't been struck down by the courts. These types of laws represent is the more subtle way of trying to get the teaching of actual science watered down in our schools.

 

[joshua 1 9]

. Remember this is the same church that burned people at the stake for trying to translate the bible,

We rejoice that God counted him worthy to be myrtered for his faith. He was myrtered by bloody Mary queen. Ie the government not the church.

 

[RSLancastr]

If you believe that scripture commands you to believe in special creation, you should also, on the same grounds, believe that the earth is the centre of the universe, discard every astronomical observation made since the 17th century, and believe that satnav and satellite TV simply don't exist.

Any takers?

Any takers of that would probably be too busy trying to prove that Pi = 3.0...

 

[joshua 1 9]

Any takers of that would probably be too busy trying to prove that Pi = 3.0...

It is a waste of time trying to explain something to people that are determined to misunderstand the Bible.

 

[Oafman]

How is the flat earth a scam?

From what I've read, multiple railroad engineers have denied the need for factoring in the curvature of the earth in designing and constructing rail lines, and have always created them straight and level/flat - no matter the distance. IMO that is a good argument for a flat earth.

Apparently, the Earth is quite big, in comparison to sections of rail lines.

Which, on balance, is a good thing, because otherwise we wouldn't have an atmosphere or internet forums.

 

[ScottA]

I have to confess that I'm mildly concerned by some of the opinions expressed on this forum.

The problem is that once there were people who, quite sincerely, believed that God was calling them to attack Galileo, even threaten him with violence, because they believed that scripture commanded a geocentric model of the universe. This of course we now know to be seriously false, and Galileo's work combined with Kepler's was used by Newton to develop a system of mechanics which in the end took us to the moon.

(An aside on this is that I have once personally had a moon rock, a golfball sized lump of Lunar Basalt, in my hand, a strange and very moving experience.)

The point is that the attack on Galileo was conducted by people who completely sincerely believed that scripture commanded them to believe in a geocentric universe.

What concerns me is that the same kind of people now believe that scripture commands them to attack the idea of evolution, on the same quality of evidence.

If you believe that scripture commands you to believe in special creation, you should also, on the same grounds, believe that the earth is the centre of the universe, discard every astronomical observation made since the 17th century, and believe that satnav and satellite TV simply don't exist.

Any takers?

What concerns me, is not that followers and believers of "infinite knowledge" of the universe, would be less than convincing or not have a complete grasp of the science...but that they would be upstaged by students and pioneers of "finite knowledge", about as subject that is beyond the scope of finite study.