HIT THE ANIMAL, NOT THE TREE

[discipler]

Dear Vladimir,
You are adept at smoothing out the rough edges of truth so that the dangerous seems almost benign. My only point is that if a man wants to believe or speak (the action you speak of) that the earth is flat or round, that the sun revolves around the earth of something else, the Catholic Church has no flipping right to put him on trial for it.
To most people, aside from your occassional apologist, what Galileo received was persecution. That kind of controlling influence by the Holy Roman Church created an atmosphere where knowledge was stiffled. This is like the effect earth first and animal rights dogma has on thought.
The next time I start a rant, I’ll try not to step on your toes.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“You are adept at smoothing out the rough edges of truth so that the dangerous seems almost benign.”

No, I am simply adept at getting the facts right.

“My only point is that if a man wants to believe or speak (the action you speak of) that the earth is flat or round, that the sun revolves around the earth of something else, the Catholic Church has no flipping right to put him on trial for it.”

And, again, you don’t have your facts right. First, you would have to prove that Galileo was tried solely for a belief in heliocentrism. He was not. That was, in fact, considered the least important of the accusations against him.

“To most people, aside from your occassional apologist, what Galileo received was persecution.”

Again, most people can’t find America on a map, and might possibly vote for Obama in November. Most people are grossly ignorant about history.

“That kind of controlling influence by the Holy Roman Church created an atmosphere where knowledge was stiffled.”

Untrue. This is nothing but an old saw and shown to be false by Kamen in his now classic Spanish Inquisition (1998).

“This is like the effect earth first and animal rights dogma has on thought.”

None. Can you prove that a single scientific thought was ever once altered or hindered by the combined total efforts of Earth First and all animal rights activists? You’re just grasping at straws. Anachronistic comparisons based on faulty premises are still anachronistic and faulty.

“The next time I start a rant, I’ll try not to step on your toes.”

Stepping on my toes isn’t the problem, What you step on is knowledge. You ignore facts to prop up your anti-Catholic, emotionally driven attacks. Next time you think you’re going to set a Catholic straight on history why don’t you learn the history first?

[discipler]

“Can you prove that a single scientific thought was ever once altered or hindered by the combined total efforts of Earth First and all animal rights activists?”

Oh gee, I suppose I can’t criticize the effects of the modern pagans because I haven’t yet measured their “total efforts”. But how in the world do you suppose that a book on the Spanish Inquisition could prove that knowledge was not hindered? Is the book able to measure the “total efforts” of the inquisition? If you the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope burned one heretic at the stake, don’t you suppose that would have to account for something? Others might think twice before criticizing the Pope: even if they had a good point. The effect of trying a man for his heliocentric view is obvious coercion. The reason for trying the man is to silence him. He may be silenced for a moment or for a lifetime. The knowledge he may have passed on was hindered at least for a while. Because the truth ultimately came into acceptance is no thanks to those who tried to silence him.

People are not ignorant to the difficulties Galileo encountered in trying to teach a scientific truth. You say I must prove that Galileo was tried “solely” because of his heliocentric views. I refuse to be pressed into this box by you. I understand that he committed other offenses: he was abrasive and offensive to the Pope. For this he was tired.

[vladimir998]

you wrote:

“Oh gee, I suppose I can’t criticize the effects of the modern pagans because I haven’t yet measured their “total efforts”.”

Again, we see your bait and switch tactic. First you said Earth First and animal rights activists and now you say pagans. The two (really three) are sometimes one in the same, but not always. Do you think you could actually make any consistent argument?

Also, I never said you could not “criticize the effects of the modern pagans” because you couldn’t measure their total efforts.

I said, “Can you PROVE that a SINGLE scientific thought was ever once altered or hindered by the combined total efforts of Earth First and all animal rights activists?”

That’s all you had to do. Prove that one - JUST ONE - scientific thought has ever been altered or hindered by the people you originally mentioned.

And of course you failed. There was no other possible outcome.

“But how in the world do you suppose that a book on the Spanish Inquisition could prove that knowledge was not hindered?”

Simple: By showing there was no basis to believe otherwise, that the Spanish Inquisition NEVER had the power, authority, nor scope which many people ignorantly assume it did.

“Is the book able to measure the “total efforts” of the inquisition?”

It doesn’t have to. It only has to show that there was no possible way for those total effects to have been what anti-Catholics would imagine them to be.

“If you the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope burned one heretic at the stake, don’t you suppose that would have to account for something?”

Yes - one burned heretic. It would not necessarily mean and hindering of scientific thought or the pursuit of knowledge. Again, how many scientists were executed after an inquisition trial? How many?

“Others might think twice before criticizing the Pope: even if they had a good point.”

Which would still have nothing to do with gaining knowledge - and your claim was about knowledge:

“That kind of controlling influence by the Holy Roman Church created an atmosphere where knowledge was stiffled.”

“The effect of trying a man for his heliocentric view is obvious coercion.”

Again, you assume that is all he was tried for. It wasn’t.

“The reason for trying the man is to silence him.”

No. The reason for trying the man was to see if he violated the law. Punishment may be for silencing, but not trying.

“He may be silenced for a moment or for a lifetime. The knowledge he may have passed on was hindered at least for a while.”

Incorrect. 1) He had already published his book so nothing was lost, 2) he was going blind so his astronomical days looking through a telescope were done, 3) nothing he claimed about heliocentrism could be proven yet because math had not caught up to his theories and he was not equipped to come up with that math.

“Because the truth ultimately came into acceptance is no thanks to those who tried to silence him.”

If heliocentrism is a scientific fact then it would have been proven sooner or later, but that does not mean all that Galileo did was good or right. You, of course, have never actually read a book about Galileo, right?

“People are not ignorant to the difficulties Galileo encountered in trying to teach a scientific truth.”

Actually, yes they are - if they make statements like yours above.

“You say I must prove that Galileo was tried “solely” because of his heliocentric views. I refuse to be pressed into this box by you.”

In reality you not only refuse to research the topic (again, you’ve never even read a single book about the subject have you?), but are apparently not able to prove what you claimed.

“I understand that he committed other offenses: he was abrasive and offensive to the Pope. For this he was tired.”

No. The pope was actually his friend - even long before the trial - they had been friends. Urban VIII was even a patron of Galileo and at least one of Galileo’s books was dedicated to him!

Again, you have no idea of what you’re talking about. That will not stop you from still posting about this of course!