Debunking the Galileo Myth

CERC ^ | DINESH D'SOUZA

[Dustbunny]

Thanks for posting.

[Dustbunny]

Most of the folks claiming there is a war between religion and science are fundamentalists.

Yep !!!

[tpanther]

If you have nothing productive to say, please don’t post to me.

---

Ummmm CM you’ve not said anything remotely productive, so you should take your own advice!

[tpanther]

Where can you show me that I believe the earth is 6000 years old?

My battles have been devoted to life origins not earth age.

[snarks_when_bored]

Dinesh isn’t arguing the church never burned heretics, only that the church didn’t oppose science.

My general point was that the Church was perfectly willing to slaughter people for their ideas, an undeniable historical fact. The fact that the Church didn't kill Galileo doesn't mean it wouldn't have killed someone who espoused similar ideas but lacked Galileo's standing.

As an aside, I would say that this article by D'Souza is part of his effort to get back into the good graces of Christians after his diasastrous foray into muslim apologetics (see, for example, Robert Spencer's "My Response to Dinesh D'Souza"). I'm surprised he can still sit down after what Spencer did to his behind...

[dangus]

>> My general point was that the Church was perfectly willing to slaughter people for their ideas, an undeniable historical fact. <<

Well then you’ve hijacked this thread. And I won’t further encourage it by responding to your “general point.”

>> The fact that the Church didn’t kill Galileo doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have killed someone who espoused similar ideas but lacked Galileo’s standing. <<

You’ve provided no evidence to that effect. In fact, since Bruno had standing and WAS executed, but Copernicus did not have such standing and WAS NOT executed, you’ve demonstrated exactly the opposite.

>> As an aside, I would say that this article by D’Souza is part of his effort to get back into the good graces of Christians after his diasastrous foray into muslim apologetics <<

I would say that you should avoid attempts at mind-reading; at best they’ll generate ad-hominem attacks. At worst, they’ll lead you to disastrously false conclusions and biased readings.

[FourtySeven]

Thanks for posting; always a good reminder.

[snarks_when_bored]

Gosh, I’m defeated. Well done.

[dangus]

>> Yeah I’ve read it. I cannot find the term “Annunciation Day” in the Bible. <<

Wow, I can’t find the term, “sola scriptura” in the bible either. Which, by your reasoning, demonstrates that your reasoing is foolish.

>> Does God have a mother? <<

There were three critical heresies which were common when the Church ruled that the title of “Mother of God” should be taught:

1. A gnostic heresy that Jesus was not divine when he was born, but that he only attained divinity. This heresy threatens to teach people that like Jesus, they can make themselves into gods.

2. The Arian heresy, alive today in Islam, that Jesus was not divine at all. This heresy threatens to teach people that Jesus was merely a prophet, and therefore further, greater revelation may come or may have come at a later point.

3. That Jesus had a divine nature, but that divine nature was seperated from his human nature, and that two persons occupied the same flesh. This heresy threatens to teach that only his human nature was crucified or that only the divine nature was resurrected, negating the amazing miracle of the crucifixion, or the hope of the resurrection.

The title “Mother of God” is a way of expressing that Jesus was fully human, and fully divine, since the only other alternatives are the three heresies aforementioned. It does not imply that Mary pre-existed God, but rather that God became Man.

Now, you seem worried that “Mother” implies something which wasn,’t intended: that Mary created Jesus. Indeed, the Latins had two terms which are both sometimes translated father, “Pater” and “Progenitor.” If “Father” could be translated “progenitor,” it’s reasonable to suppose that “Mother” could be. But to suppose that “Mother of God” might lead people to believe that Mary was God’s progenitor, you’d have to believe that Catholics are pretty damned stupid.

So if you’re going to object to the term “Mother of God,” can you find any instance where Catholics have stated that Mary existed before God existed? If not, what is the basis of your concern?

>> I can find gifts of the Spirit, but perhaps I read too much. <<

I’m gonna suppose what you might mean by this point: that among the gifts are wisdom and discernment to distinguish true doctrine from false doctrine? If so, two people cannot discern different truths about the same point.

When two sides both read the same bible and come to differing conclusions, what should we do? Many protestants seem to rely on the insistence that the other side isn’t really basing their arguments on the bible, which convinces themselves of their own opinion, but not those on the other side who know better. Catholics look to see which understanding is that of the ancient church. Protestants complain that we can’t really know what the ancients believed because Catholics have been the ones in charge of the church for so long... Oh, yeah... that’s the Catholic point exactly!

[WOSG]

Post #32 has the facts on Galileo. Thanks.

[dr_lew]

Aristotle opposed empiricism;

"... the facts, however, have not yet been sufficiently grasped; if ever they are, then credit must be given rather to observation than to theories, and to theories only if what they affirm agrees with observed facts." - Aristotle, on the life of bees

The Church did not, however, assert that Aristotle’s thoughts was absolutely valid, nor was its faith dependent on Aristotle, nor were any Christians obliged to defend Aristotle.

"That Galileo often treated the motion of the earth as real and not hypothetical" - #3 in a list of "textual points offensive to the Church" in the Dialogues Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. The fixity of the earth was a point of Church doctrine, needless to say, and this was founded in Scriptural interpretation, not in devotion to Aristotle.

But Gallileo perceived the Church’s “Aristotelian-by-default” positions as obstacles to the rapid progress of his science. And so he trained his attack on the institutions of the church itself, using Aristotle as a straw man against the entire notion of preserved knowledge.

Where are you getting this? Galileo never attacked any institution of the Church, but turned himself inside out trying to conform to the Church's requirements, and he thought he was successful in this.

He never attacked Aristotle either, but only slavish devotion to his works. He insisted that Aristotle himself would be interested in and open to his findings.

[AnalogReigns]

It should be noted, a doctrine central to Roman Catholic distinctives is Transubstantiation of the bread and wine in the Mass.

The teaching that things consist of substance and accidents is purely Aristotelian, and is actually essential to the doctrine of Transubstiation—namely that accidents (sensible appearances) can be different from substance. Hence the bread and wine used in the Mass may look and have all the other measurable characteristics of bread and wine...but their invisible substance is miraculously changed during Communion into the body and blood of Jesus.

Aristotle’s understanding of the nature of things—substance and accidents—is an absolute prerequisite to the central dogma of Transubstantiation. Hence the Roman Catholic Church to this day demands its members to accept Aristotle—at least when it comes to the Mass.

[dr_lew]

I have a book, GALILEO HERETIC, which advances the theory that Galileo’s ideas challenged the doctrine of the Eucharist, and that this was the central motivation for his persecution. The author, Pietro Redondi, identifies ATOMISM as the offending element of these ideas. It seems that atomism erases the distinction between substance and accident since it identifies qualities as necessary material consequences of atomistic substance, or something like that.

I read this years ago, and looking through it, it seems I haven’t retained very much of it! Well, enough of it that your remark instantly put me in mind of it.

[dangus]

>> Aristotle’s understanding of the nature of things—substance and accidents—is an absolute prerequisite to the central dogma of Transubstantiation. <<

Let’s say that the Catholic church found a way of explaining transubstantiation through philosophical concepts developed by Aristotle.

[Claud]

My general point was that the Church was perfectly willing to slaughter people for their ideas, an undeniable historical fact.

Uh, it's actually quite deniable.

Refusing to participate in state religion was part of civil legislation since pagan times. The Christians were prosecuted and executed--for what again?--for refusing to offer incense to the Emperor and to participate in the state cult. Theirs was a religious crime but it was prosecuted in the civil arena.

Then the Empire became Christian. The various northern barbarians adopted Christianity as well. The civil law about Roman religion now was simply transplanted to Christianity: so heresy was made illegal.

The trouble was that dukes, princes, and magistrates were *not competent* to judge cases of heresy. They could trump up a charge of heresy based on very flimsy evidence. So the Church decided to reform this system by demanding that *it* do all the fact-finding and render its official judgment in heresy cases. This was the Inquisition.

This is crucial to understand. The Inquisition, as far as I know, executed no one--an if you read the trial transcripts in those cases where people were found guilty of obstinate heresy, you find over and over again the line "and he was handed over to the secular arm to be burned." I.e. it was NOT the Church that was executing people--it was the state.

This is not to say that the Church was completely blameless in the Inquisition. There were problems with the system, and that's why it was dismantled. Heck, Joan of Arc was made a saint after she was burned for heresy.

But the Inquisition was not--as the modern parody makes it--some Church-sponsored persecution of heresy. It had its germ in the reform of a real legal problem and was actually far more temperate and fair than the secular courts whose jurisdiction it replaced.

[dangus]

>> Aristotle opposed empiricism; <<

I did misstate myself; Aristotle didn’t oppose empiricism; he did believe that in significant areas of study, rational examination was superior to empiricism, a notion that the Church vigorously supported in matters of revelation. Following Aristotle, many Church thinkers opposed empiricism, but, yes, Aristotle did certainly find empiricism had its uses.

>> “That Galileo often treated the motion of the earth as real and not hypothetical” <<

If the church’s position was what you claim it to be, such a hypothesis would also be offensive. But as strong as the Church’s notion that the Earth was fixed was, the Church was actually so PRO-science, that they (in the person of St. Bellarmine) acknowledged even in the abstract that if such a notion proved true, they would have to confront their presumption.

>> Galileo never attacked any institution of the Church, but turned himself inside out trying to conform to the Church’s requirements, and he thought he was successful in this. <<

Oh, please. Galileo may have been a great scientist, but he was a bald-faced liar. When told not to promote his hypothesis, he did exactly that, and then denied that anything he had written could possibly be preceived as supporting heliocentricity, to the embarrassment of his defenders. “Who are you going to believe,” he essentially told the church, “me, or the plain language of what I’ve written?”

[colorado tanker]

I don't understand why this thread devolved into a food fight. I agree with the article that the whole Galileo affair has been overblown.

I also think the religion v. science thing is a false choice. The folks who like to bash Christianity over the Inquisition and other injustices are just living in the past. After the Reformation and Counter-Reformation that sort of behavior largely disappeared. The Salem Witch Trials sufficiently horrified the Massachusetts establishment that they saw to it nothing like that would happen again. There wasn't another general European war of religion after the Thirty Years War.

On the other hand, Islam never went through a reformation, which poses some very real and present problems.

[snarks_when_bored]

This is crucial to understand. The Inquisition, as far as I know, executed no one--an if you read the trial transcripts in those cases where people were found guilty of obstinate heresy, you find over and over again the line "and he was handed over to the secular arm to be burned." I.e. it was NOT the Church that was executing people--it was the state.

You're arguing that because the state was doing the executing, the Church (Pontius Pilate-like) had clean hands?

[Radix]

"Wow, I can’t find the term, “sola scriptura” in the bible either. Which, by your reasoning, demonstrates that your reasoing is foolish."

There is a reason that the term "sola scriptura" can not be found in the Bible.

Lots of stuff cannot be found in the Bible.

Infant Baptism. I cannot find it.

Trinity. I cannot find it.

Transubstantiation? I cannot find it.

Purgatory? I cannot find it.

I could go on ad infinitum!

I'll give you a clue......to what is going on.....Clearly the letters to the seven Churches which are in Asia is currently beyond your willingness to consider....

My "reasoing" as you put it, is based on a lifetime of actually paying attention to what is being said in congregation by honest folk.

I have no grievances with the Churches of Sardis, Smyrna, Laodicea, et al.

I appreciate the metaphors and the messages. I doubt that you have yet seriously considered the whole of it all.

There is still time.

[Radix]

"Lord — was used as the Jewsih people at that time as a reference to God."

Modern Jews will not even post the word God. They substitute a hyphen b/n "G" and "D" because they do not wish to cloud the mystery of all time expressed in the great Mosic interrogative.

"13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? "

You can find more concerning that in Exodus 3: 13-14. When you figure out just why Jews are so determined to not invoke the actual name of God anywhere in public at all, please post to me. I could use some new insights.

LORD as translated into English depending on the font is a substitution of the true text which for reasons not honestly explained by "Scholars" all around was a substitution for the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH.

The Hebrew substitution for Yahweh was regularly Adonai, or Elohim, regularly translated as "Lord" or "LORD" (note the phont) in the King James and elsewhere. You will need to do some actual reading to understand this lesson.

You can find out more by searching the Internet for explanations. Yaweh is modernly translated in the KJV as the Lord, or LORD.

Go on and look more carefully at your King James. The truth shall make you free. There is no longer any excuse for ignorance. Certainly not among folks who would actually dare to comment out loud concerning the issue.