When Galileo was put on trial for pointing out that the Earth moved around the sun (instead of the Sun moving around the Earth), what he was encountering was how people invent cosmologies (in that case that Earth is immobile), and then having their pet theory, invest their egos into that theory...and then insist that their theory is what the Bible says.
And for them, it is in a way -- they often literally cannot see anything else I think.
This may be a tangent, but I still wish to note it.
It is not really accurate to say Galileo "pointed out" that the Earth moved around the sun. That expression makes it sound as if this was obvious or at least provable and he was just demonstrating it. It wasn't. There was evidence for it, and there was evidence against it at the time. At most someone could say Galileo had done the best job arguing for it, but he hadn't proven it. It was only later on that more evidence was gathered which managed to more fully prove what Galileo was unable to. At the time, and with the evidence available, there were very valid reasons to be skeptical of Galileo's ideas... and other scientists were. Galileo was in the minority scientifically at the time, because the scientific information available at the time hadn't proven his claims yet. Indeed, it should be noted that modern scientific information
still hasn't proven his claims, because Galileo claimed that the Sun did not move and everything went around it--which is rejected by modern scientists and heliocentrists. Galileo might have been right about the specific claim of Earth going around the Sun, but his larger claim of the Sun being immobile is not considered true even today.
As for the condemnation of Galileo itself, it should be noted that the claim that the Earth moves around the sun was not by itself what he was specifically condemned for. The 1633 decree against him condemns the claim that the Earth is mobile
and that the Sun is immobile as one doctrine, as shown here:
While this page's argument is more strictly aimed at fringe Catholics who try to claim that the church infallibly declared heliocentrism to be a heresy, it nevertheless is of use to us here as it points out that what was condemned was the combined claim that the Sun was immobile and the Earth mobile:
To the extent that it specifically addresses a doctrinal point, the 1633 decree strictly addresses Copernicanism as a unity. Throughout, the decree addresses a singular doctrine/opinion which has two facets, an immobile sun at the center of the universe and a mobile earth:
“the false doctrine [NB: singular] taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion”
“the false opinion [NB: singular] of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun”
“the doctrine [NB: singular] of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held.”
“the doctrine [NB: singular]—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world”
Again, what the 1633 decree actually addresses is a singular doctrine/opinion which includes two points—notice that they are connected with the conjunction “and”, not “or” —viz., that that the sun is the immovable center of the universe and that the earth moves and is not the center of the universe.
Now, had the science proved that the Sun was in fact immobile and the Earth (and everything else) went around it, then the decree could be considered wrong. But the claim by modern science is instead that the Sun and Earth are
both mobile. Therefore, what is regarded as the truth nowadays was not what was condemned against Galileo.
