My Galileo Challenge

[Justatruthseeker]

The year of their death?

Makes the publisher a lot more money when you don't have to pay the dead guy.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No answer, eh? Didn't expect one.

Then let me give you an answer, AV: there weren't any.

Why would the Church need scientists to tell them they were right?

That's the problem with not understanding history.... You fail to understand where the modern universities originated....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university

"The first Western European institutions generally considered universities were established in the Kingdom of Italy (then part of the Holy Roman Empire), the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of France, the Kingdom of Spain, and the Kingdom of Portugal between the 11th and 15th centuries for the study of the Arts and the higher disciplines of Theology, Law, and Medicine.[1] These universities evolved from much older Christian cathedral schools and monastic schools, and it is difficult to define the exact date when they became true universities, though the lists of studia generalia for higher education in Europe held by the Vatican are a useful guide......"

"......The university is generally regarded as a formal institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting.[4][5] Prior to the establishment of universities, European higher education took place for hundreds of years in Christian cathedral schools or monastic schools (scholae monasticae), in which monks and nuns taught classes. Evidence of these immediate forerunners of the later university at many places dates back to the 6th century AD......"

The Monks were the ones that taught the scientists, including Kepler, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and all of them..... Without religion, we would still be rubbing sticks together......

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's the problem with not understanding history.... You fail to understand where the modern universities originated....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university

"The first Western European institutions generally considered universities were established in the Kingdom of Italy (then part of the Holy Roman Empire), the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of France, the Kingdom of Spain, and the Kingdom of Portugal between the 11th and 15th centuries for the study of the Arts and the higher disciplines of Theology, Law, and Medicine.[1] These universities evolved from much older Christian cathedral schools and monastic schools, and it is difficult to define the exact date when they became true universities, though the lists of studia generalia for higher education in Europe held by the Vatican are a useful guide......"

"......The university is generally regarded as a formal institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting.[4][5] Prior to the establishment of universities, European higher education took place for hundreds of years in Christian cathedral schools or monastic schools (scholae monasticae), in which monks and nuns taught classes. Evidence of these immediate forerunners of the later university at many places dates back to the 6th century AD......"

The Monks were the ones that taught the scientists, including Kepler, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and all of them..... Without religion, we would still be rubbing sticks together......

Perhaps if you followed the conversation, you'd tell me (since AV can't) who were the scientists who testified against Galileo at his inquisition?

AV seems to think there were some... I say none did.

Care to correct me?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's easy to blame the Catholic church for Galileo's predicament; but how many scientists in Galileo's day opposed Galileo's heliocentric model of the solar system?

How long was it from the time Galileo presented his ideas to the time consensus of opinion occurred in his favor?

I have no idea. But sure, it oftenly is the case that new revolutionary ideas can have a hard time to break previously held consensus.

Take Big Bang Theory for example.
Did you know that the term "big bang" was actually first used in a derogatory way to ridicule the idea? The name just stuck.

I think it is a typical human response when you get your held ideas challenged.
However, in science, once the initial ridicule wears of and the evidence based papers start spreading and as more and more peers actually review them with intellectual honesty... They are quickly accepted and old views are quickly discarded.

It's called learning.

But sure, people / humans don't like being wrong. So I don't think it's very surprising to meet much scepticism and perhaps even ridicule when you challenge foundational or core beliefs with revolutionary alternatives.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I have no idea. But sure, it oftenly is the case that new revolutionary ideas can have a hard time to break previously held consensus.

Take Big Bang Theory for example.
Did you know that the term "big bang" was actually first used in a derogatory way to ridicule the idea? The name just stuck.

I think it is a typical human response when you get your held ideas challenged.
However, in science, once the initial ridicule wears of and the evidence based papers start spreading and as more and more peers actually review them with intellectual honesty... They are quickly accepted and old views are quickly discarded.

It's called learning.

But sure, people / humans don't like being wrong. So I don't think it's very surprising to meet much scepticism and perhaps even ridicule when you challenge foundational or core beliefs with revolutionary alternatives.

This is true. It's human nature to be comforted by traditional ideas, and when those ideas are threatened...

 

[AV1611VET]

This is true. It's human nature to be comforted by traditional ideas, and when those ideas are threatened...

I wouldn't exactly call an empirical observation about the earth and cosmos "traditional ideas."

 

[TLK Valentine]

I wouldn't exactly call an empirical observation about the earth and cosmos "traditional ideas."

No, you wouldn't. But we all know what you say when empirical observation contradicts the Bible, so perhaps you're not the go-to guy to discuss "empirical observation" with.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you wouldn't.

Which came first, professor? the observation or the tradition?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Which came first, professor? the observation or the tradition?

Usually, the observation. But they both come before the correction.

And which one is more important, student?

 

[AV1611VET]

Usually, the observation. But they both come before the correction.

And which one is more important, student?

Correcting the observation, of course.

Cataract surgery for those who can't see past their instruments.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Correcting the observation, of course.

Cataract surgery for those who can't see past their instruments.

It was Galileo's instrument that showed him a heliocentric system... the Catholic Church was certainly eager to "correct" him.

 

[AV1611VET]

... the Catholic Church was certainly eager to "correct" him.

I'm sure atheists were too.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm sure atheists were too.

Why do you have that fantasy?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm sure atheists were too.

We went over this already, AV -- you seem to think there were "expert witnesses" at Galileo's Inquisition. I can assure you, no atheists testified.

 

[AV1611VET]

We went over this already, AV -- you seem to think there were "expert witnesses" at Galileo's Inquisition. I can assure you, no atheists testified.

And I thought I humored you on this.

If you want me to think no atheist on the face of this planet in 1633 thought the solar system was geocentric, you've got another thought coming.

And I can't picture anyone other than geocentrists being involved in Galileo's plight: whether they wore a robe or a labcoat.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And I thought I humored you on this.

If you want me to think no atheist on the face of this planet in 1633 thought the solar system was geocentric, you've got another thought coming.

You're the one who thinks that they testified against him...

And I can't picture anyone other than geocentrists being involved in Galileo's plight: whether they wore a robe or a labcoat.

labcoats in 1633? I see you're beyond humoring.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Except we know the Church was not specifically against Galileo.

What we find is that “The Victorian biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, who had no brief for Catholicism, once examined the case and concluded that “the Church had the best of it.” The most striking point about the whole affair is that until Galileo forced the issue into the realm of theology, the Church had been a willing ombudsman for the new astronomy. It had encouraged the work of Copernicus and sheltered Kepler against the persecutions of Calvinists. Problems only arose when the debate went beyond the mere question of celestial mechanics. But here we need some historical background.

https://www.astronomynotes.com/history/GalileoAffair.html

But people don’t want historical background, they want to believe their myths about history.....

“The modern age of science began in 1543 when Nicholas Copernicus, a Polish Canon, published his epochal On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs. The popular view is that Copernicus “discovered” that the earth revolves around the sun. Actually, the notion is at least as old as the ancient Greeks. But the geocentric theory, endorsed by Aristotle and given mathematical plausibility by Ptolemy, was the prevailing model until Copernicus. It was given additional credibility by certain passages of Scripture, which seemed to affirm the mobility of the sun and the fixity of the earth. Most early Church Fathers simply took it for granted; but they weren't really interested in scientific explanations of the cosmos. As St. Ambrose wrote, “To discuss the nature and position of the earth does not help us in our hope of the life to come.”

“Prone as we are to what C. S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery,” we must try to understand the prevailing attitude toward science when Galileo began his work. Since the time of the Greeks, the purpose of astronomy was to “save the appearances” of celestial phenomena. This famous phrase is usually taken to mean the resorting to desperate expedients to “save” or rescue the Ptolemaic system. But it meant no such thing. To the Greek and medieval mind, science was a kind of formalism, a means of coordinating data, which had no bearing on the ultimate reality of things. Different mathematical devices—such as the Ptolemaic cycles—could be advanced to predict the movements of the planets, and it was of no concern to the medieval astronomer whether such devices touched on the actual physical truth. The point was to give order to complicated data, and all that mattered was which hypothesis (a key word in the Galileo affair) was the simplest and most convenient.”

TOYS FOR VIRTUOSI

“The almost universal belief that the purpose of science was not to give a final account of reality, but merely to “save appearances,” accounts for how lightly the Church hierarchy initially received Copernicus's theory. Astronomy and mathematics were regarded as the play things of virtuosi. They were accounted as having neither philosophical nor theological relevance. There was genuine puzzlement among Churchmen that they had to get involved in a quarrel over planetary orbits. It was all one to them how the “appearances” were “saved.” And, in fact, Copernicus, a good Catholic, published his book at the urging of two eminent prelates and dedicated it to Pope Paul III, who received it cordially.”

Only when he ridiculed the Pope, did the Pope turn against him. As long as it was left in scientific realms and not theological, the church didn’t care how they saved appearances.

One must read it all to understand.....

 

[TLK Valentine]

Except we know the Church was not specifically against Galileo.

Never said it was -- but they had incorporated the Ptolomeic (geocentirc) view into their theology... and were less than willing to admit error.


“The modern age of science began in 1543 when Nicholas Copernicus, a Polish Canon, published his epochal On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs. The popular view is that Copernicus “discovered” that the earth revolves around the sun. Actually, the notion is at least as old as the ancient Greeks. But the geocentric theory, endorsed by Aristotle and given mathematical plausibility by Ptolemy, was the prevailing model until Copernicus. It was given additional credibility by certain passages of Scripture, which seemed to affirm the mobility of the sun and the fixity of the earth. Most early Church Fathers simply took it for granted; but they weren't really interested in scientific explanations of the cosmos. As St. Ambrose wrote, “To discuss the nature and position of the earth does not help us in our hope of the life to come.” [/QUOTE]

Indeed, I mentioned Copernicus earlier. You were there when I did, remember?

“Prone as we are to what C. S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery,” we must try to understand the prevailing attitude toward science when Galileo began his work. Since the time of the Greeks, the purpose of astronomy was to “save the appearances” of celestial phenomena. This famous phrase is usually taken to mean the resorting to desperate expedients to “save” or rescue the Ptolemaic system. But it meant no such thing. To the Greek and medieval mind, science was a kind of formalism, a means of coordinating data, which had no bearing on the ultimate reality of things. Different mathematical devices—such as the Ptolemaic cycles—could be advanced to predict the movements of the planets, and it was of no concern to the medieval astronomer whether such devices touched on the actual physical truth. The point was to give order to complicated data, and all that mattered was which hypothesis (a key word in the Galileo affair) was the simplest and most convenient.”

TOYS FOR VIRTUOSI

“The almost universal belief that the purpose of science was not to give a final account of reality, but merely to “save appearances,” accounts for how lightly the Church hierarchy initially received Copernicus's theory. Astronomy and mathematics were regarded as the play things of virtuosi. They were accounted as having neither philosophical nor theological relevance. There was genuine puzzlement among Churchmen that they had to get involved in a quarrel over planetary orbits. It was all one to them how the “appearances” were “saved.” And, in fact, Copernicus, a good Catholic, published his book at the urging of two eminent prelates and dedicated it to Pope Paul III, who received it cordially.”

Only when he ridiculed the Pope, did the Pope turn against him. As long as it was left in scientific realms and not theological, the church didn’t care how they saved appearances.

One must read it all to understand.....

Indeed -- And once Galileo tugged the tail of the Church, as it were, they had no choice but to react. And in that reaction, they turned their attention back to Copernicus, and banned his work, pending the rewrite of heliocenticism as strictly hypothetical.

Galileo made it personal, and in so doing, made it a threat... and in some circles, no threat, no matter how small, can go unanswered.

 

[AV1611VET]

*

Yowzers!

Good post!

Is this in book form anywhere?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yowzers!

Good post!

Is this in book form anywhere?

Doesn't seem so -- but you can find the entire article that J. cut and pasted from here: https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/the-galileo-affair.html

Allow me to add something that Justatruthseeker chose to omit:

Scripture and science

Galileo addressed this problem in his famous Letter to Castelli. In its approach to biblical exegesis, the letter ironically anticipates Leo XIII's encyclical, Providentis-sumus Deus (1893), which pointed out that Scripture often makes use of figurative language and is not meant to teach science. Galileo accepted the inerrancy of Scripture; but he was also mindful of Cardinal Baronius's quip that the bible "is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." And he pointed out correctly that both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the sacred writers in no way meant to teach a system of astronomy. St. Augustine wrote that:

One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon. For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.

Unfortunately, there are still today biblical fundamentalists, both Protestant and Catholic, who do not understand this simple point: the bible is not a scientific treatise. When Christ said that the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds (and it is about the size of a speck of dust), he was not laying down a principle of botany. In fact, botanists tell us that there are smaller seeds. He was simply talking to the men of his time in their own language, and with reference to their own experience. Hence the warning of Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) that the true sense of a biblical passage is not always obvious, as the sacred writers made full use of the idioms of their time and place.

But in 1616, the year of Galileo's first "trial," there was precious little elasticity in Catholic biblical theology. The Church had just been through the bruising battles of the Reformation. One of the chief quarrels with the Protestants was over the private interpretation of Scripture. Catholic theologians were in no mood to entertain hermeneutical injunctions from a layman like Galileo. His friend Archbishop Piero Dini warned him that he could write freely so long as he "kept out of the sacristy." But Galileo threw caution to the winds, and it was on this point — his apparent trespassing on the theologians' turf — that his enemies were finally able to nail him.


Please note that I haven't at any point disagreed with anything here.