The Christian Origins of Science

In 1942, Cardinal Giovanni Mercati, who discovered a number of lost documents relating to Bruno’s trial, stated that the Church was perfectly justified in condemning him. On the 400th anniversary of Bruno’s death, in 2000, Cardinal Angelo Sodano declared Bruno’s death to be a “sad episode” but, despite his regret, he defended Bruno’s prosecutors,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno#England.2C_1583.E2.80.931585

“Straw man argument. Believing in truth as a concept is separate from penalties for “exposing new ideas”.”

They were the ‘keepers of the truth’. Any new ideas were dealt with as heresy and a penalty of death unless you recanted.

Not true. Some new ideas were considered heresy, and some were not. In addition, truth was a defense. As truth was shown, the ideas were shown not to be heretical.

Kepler was not burned. Newton was not burned. Descartes was not burned. Some think he was assassinated, but even that possibility is a long way from an official execution.

Re: “The predominant Christian view of the universe at that time was that the sun orbited the earth. That was NOT his view.”

Even if you’re contention is true, about the prevailing “church” view regarding the sun and earth, the Christian view was that a rational God created a rational universe that can be studied and understood - obviously there was disagreement among Christians, just as there is among secular scientists today - you’re objection does not negate that fact.

If he had the support of the church, then why was it banned by the church?

You did your research well, my friend. There were several details I was unaware of, thank you.

The answer to your question is that a century elapsed between Copernicus's publication and Galileo's tribulations. The nature of the solar system is a pretty earth-shaking question. But at the same time, in the Church's view, it's not a matter of Church teaching on faith or morals, so Popes and cardinals in different eras may make different judgments about which claims seem well proven and which don't--and which ideas risk causing scandal or fear among the faithful, and shouldn't be handled carelesly. If a shocking theory can't be proven definitively to be true, and especially if the man promoting it was a bit of a bomb-thrower, the judgment in Galileo's time was that they shouldn't be claimed as fact. The channels were a little more open for Copernicus.

In the 16th century, the epicenter of the issue was Galileo himself. The ecclesial authorities more or less decided he was causing scandal by acting like a jerk. As I recall, the theory wasn't banned--Galileo was just banned from espousing it publicly. The difference in treatment probably had more to do with the attitude, position, and persona of Galileo versus those of Canon Copernicus.

T-gat,

I’ve not completed the entire thread, but after seeing all your replies, i’ve come to the opinion that your comments are not enlightening; they’re annoying.

Always a doubt planted, always a counter to thoughtful replies; never a source offered to support your claims, yet somehow your pricks designed to invite others to elaborate (... while you do not...).

Sophistry in lieu of Socratic method...

The JG

PS: to all those who replied to tgator in this thread - thanks for your efforts.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.