Debunking the Galileo Myth

CERC ^ | DINESH D'SOUZA

[TASMANIANRED]

bookmark for later.

[RobbyS]

The Inquisition is misunderstood. In particular the confusion between the Roman and the Spanish Inquisition. The Spanish Inquistion, whose reality is more like the legend, behaved brutally for the first twenty years of its existence, and then became largely a bullying operation, trying to separate out Jews and then Muslims from authentic Christians. Neither played much a role during the Reformation. Witches were the more common victims of both relgious and civil courts in both Catholic and Protestant countries for a period of several hundred years.

[Titanites]

For some reason the Church believes science and religion cannot co exist.

LOL, you couldn't be more wrong. Just ask the folks at one of the oldest observatories in the world:

The 2008 Templeton Prize was awarded to Fr. Heller with the Vatican Observatory.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Titanites]

If you are really interested in learning how far off the mark you are, the book Brother Astronomer: Adventures of a Vatican Scientist is a good one to read:

[aruanan]

About a hundred years ago, two anti-religious bigots named John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White wrote books promoting the idea of an irreconcilable conflict between science and God.

Somewhere I have a numbered edition of White's book.

[aruanan]

Around 240 B.C. Eratosthenes used the angle of elevation of the sun at noon on the summer solstice in Alexandria and on the Elephantine Island near Syene to calculate the circumference of the earth. He was pretty close.

[cacoethes_resipisco]

One might perhaps he surprised that at the end of the Academy’s study week on the theme of the emergence of complexity in the various sciences, I am returning to the Galileo case. Has not this case long been shelved and have not the errors committed been recognized?

That is certainly true. However, the underlying problems of this case concern both the nature of science and the message of faith. It is therefore not to be excluded that one day we shall find ourselves in a similar situation, one which will require both sides to have an informed awareness of the field and of the limits of their own competencies. The approach provided by the theme of complexity could provide an illustration of this.

5. A twofold question is at the heart of the debate of which Galileo was the centre.

The first is of the epistemological order and concerns biblical hermeneutics. In this regard, two points must again be raised. In the first place, like most of his adversaries, Galileo made no distinction between the scientific approach to natural phenomena and a reflection on nature, of the philosophical order, which that approach generally calls for. That is why he rejected the suggestion made to him to present the Copernican system as a hypothesis, inasmuch as it had not been confirmed by irrefutable proof. Such, however, was an exigency of the experimental method of which he was the inspired founder. [468]

Secondly, the geocentric representation of the world was commonly admitted in the culture of the time as fully agreeing with the teaching of the Bible, of which certain expressions taken literally, seemed to affirm geocentrism. The problem posed by the theologians of that age was, therefore, that of the compatibility between heliocentrism and Scripture.

Thus the new science with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged the theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so.

Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. “If Scripture cannot err”, he wrote to Benedetto Castelli, “certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways”.[2] We also know of his letter to Christine de Lorraine (1615) which is like a short treatise on biblical hermeneutics.[3]

6. From this we can now draw our first conclusion. The birth of a new way of approaching the study of natural phenomena demands a clarification on the part of all disciplines of knowledge. It obliges them to define more clearly their own field, their approach, their methods, as well as the precise import of their conclusions. In other words, this new way requires each discipline to become more rigorously aware of its own nature.

The upset caused by the Copernican system thus demanded epistemological reflection on the biblical sciences, an effort which later would produce abundant fruit in modern exegetical works and which has found sanction and a new stimulus in the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council.

7. The crisis that I have just recalled is not the only factor to have had repercussions on biblical interpretation. Here we are concerned with the second aspect of the problem, its pastoral dimension.

By virtue of her own mission, the Church has the duty to be attentive to the pastoral consequences of her teaching. Before all else, let it be clear that this teaching must correspond to the truth. But it is a question of knowing how to judge a new scientific datum when it seems to contradict the truths of faith. The pastoral judgement which the Copernican theory required was difficult to make, in so far as geocentrism seemed to be a part of scriptural [469] teaching itself. It would have been necessary all at once to overcome habits of thought and to devise a way of teaching capable of enlightening the people of God. Let us say, in a general way, that the pastor ought to show a genuine boldness, avoiding the double trap of a hesitant attitude and of hasty judgement, both of which can cause considerable harm.

Excerpt from the speech of Pope John Paul II before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1992

[Salvation]

**For some reason the Church believes science and religion cannot co exist. **

I think the Catholic Church has changed here.

When it comes to abortion vs. life, the Catholic Church is basically the first and only one standing saying that life begins at conception (as science proves.)

Who woulda thunk it?

[Salvation]

**I cannot find the term “Mother of God” in the Bible.**

Oh, you are so wrong. Elizabeth says to Mary at the Visitation, “And how is this that the Mother of my Lord, should come to me?”

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

[Salvation]

**I cannot find the term “Annunciation Day” in the Bible.**

Again, you are wrong. An Annunciation is a beginning. Read Luke 1: 26-38. It is the announcement of the Angel Gabriel to Mary that she is to be the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit.

[allmendream]

I think that the actual experiment was with balls the same shape but of different weights, so air resistance would be the same, but even so; you are correct, a 10 lb weight and a 50 lb weight are going to hit at (approximately) the same time.

I think this is indicative of the general scholarship level of this article.

[nuf said]

The real war is between the unthinking young earth creationists and the old earth creationists. The fundamentalists cling to the interpretation of the days of creation as literal 24 hour days. Check out the Young's and Amplified's translation of Hebrews 1:2 and 11:3 where it says God made the ages.

[verga]

Oh, and while we are at it, let's also remember that the Inquisition was also totally ' misunderstood.'blah blah blah

Congratulations on getting the ignorant bigot post into the top ten.

Number of people put to death by the Catholic church during the Spanish inquisition? Zero!, Number put to death by civil governments? about 1000.

While we are at it which inquisition are YOU talking about?

You see there have been about a dozen or so, ten of which involved catholics being put to death by Pagan and Protestant groups. Might want to look up Diocletian.

[verga]

Great book, and a great series on ewtn

[dangus]

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

Almost 20 years ago, when I attended state university, my fellow biology majors frequently puzzled over how a Christian could study science.

[dangus]

>> While we are all upset about Liberals misquoting facts let us not start becoming DENIERS who deny historical truth. I myself went to Catholic school in the early 70s and let me tell you even then the Church was very anti science. <<

Outrageously prepostrous. So far from believable, you might as well have declared Reagan was a communist and Clinton was a celibate victim of an ultra-conservative news media. Even the pedophilia problem was exacerbated by the Church relying on secular psychologists telling them what to do.

If you went to a Catholic school run by one of the precious few nuns who didn’t go all lefty-goofy, and was so shell-shocked by the outrageous excesses of modernism that she over-reacted against science, certainly you could’ve noticed by now that she was a lone wolf, couldn’t you?

>> For some reason the Church believes science and religion cannot co exist. <<

Tell that the symposia of all the world’s greatest scientists who regularly met at Castile Gandolfo to discuss science with Pope John Paul II.

Tell that Steven Hawkings, who wrote about how the pope brilliantly understood everything Hawkings taught him about the creation of the universe, and stated in reply, “See, we told you so.” (Hawkings was so shaken at the pope’s insight taht he’s spent so much of the rest of his career working feverishly to refute the big bang.)

Tell that to all the Protestant critics of Catholicism, who can’t fathom why the church hasn’t plainly renounced evolution or the big bang and instead are baffled how church leaders explain how they are consistent with the truthfulness of the bible. (The objection of the Catholic Church amounts merely to the nihilist reductio ad absurdum
faslely attached to such scientific theories by propagandists like Dawkins.)

[dangus]

The explanation is perfectly correct.

>> Drop a 10-pound weight and a 50-pound weight at the same time and both hit at the same time. If both objects have the same shape but different weights, they will hit at the same time because the air will affect both the same way. <<

No. In the absence of air, both accelerate at the same rate, but the heavier object is experiencing a greater force apon it to move it at the same rate. If the two objects are the equal size and shape but different weights, the heavier object will fall faster.

Suppose object 1 experieces 10 (kg*m)/s of gravity and at a given speed, it encounters 1 kg*m/s of resistance falling. The net force is 9 kg*m/s, or Newtons. Such an object would accelerate quickly. (These values are for easy math, and are not realistic on earth.) Suppose a 1kg object encountered the same gravity. If it were falling at the same rate as the first object, it would also experience a resistance of 1 kg*m/s. The net force, however, would be 0, and the object would not accelerate.

Thus, the heavier object travels faster than the lighter object.

[dangus]

>> Here’s a name that Dinesh D’Souza apparently doesn’t know: Giordano Bruno. A philosopher and a scientist, Bruno was burned at the stake in February of 1600 by the Roman Inquisition <<

Here’s what your source says:

“He is often considered an early martyr for modern scientific ideas, in part because he was burned at the stake as a heretic by the Roman Inquisition. However, others argue that his actual heresy was his pantheist beliefs about God,[1] not any idea we would today characterize as scientific.[2]”

Here’s what he was tried for (still YOUR source):

* Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.

What were those opinions contrary to Catholic Faith?

1. Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ’s divinity and Incarnation.
2. Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
3. Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
4. Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
5. Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.
6. Dealing in magics and divination.
7. Denying the Virginity of Mary.

(numbers added by me.)
“Well, isn’t at least #4 is sort of Copernican, isn’t it?” you might ask. Don’t attach a modern understanding of the meaning of those words; Bruno was advocating something more similar to the goofy notions of Mormonism and Scientology.

And just so we’re all clear: Dinesh isn’t arguing the church never burned heretics, only that the church didn’t oppose science. Although your source tries to remain neutral in its conclusions, it provides very clear evidence that the notion that he was a martyr for science is mere legend.

[dangus]

A note: if Kuhn believes the results favored Aristotle, he *is* wrong on that point. If it’s that Galileo’s physics are, he is wrong on that point, although I don’t think that is his point. I think he points out the experiment wouldn’t work only to say that the experiment never happened, not that Galileo was wrong in principle. I think the larger point is that Galileo only ever proposed a thought exercise; the supposed demostration is a legend, as Galileo’s comments demonstrate.

Read Galileo’s quote; it sounds like everyone acknowledges that objects don’t fall at speeds proportional to their masses. But what is Galileo’s point? If he’s arguing that empiricism is superior to rationalism, he’s using a straw man, the same one that got him in trouble.

Aristotle opposed empiricism; the Church rejected empiricism on matters of revealed faith (the scripture), and syllogisms based on that revealed faith. Some in the church (Aquinas) tried to use syllogisms on matters far beyond the expertise of the scripture (locating Eden, for instance, in central Asia), and other Catholics regarded certain Aristotelian concepts as supportive of the faith. In a sense, they reasoned, because Aristotle helped prepare the Greek world for the logic that Paul would use to promote Christianity, Aristotle prepared the world for Christianity. Therefore, they saw the hand of God behind certain of Aristotle’s teachings.

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. (Hadn’t the Pharoah also prepared Israel for Mosaic law in a sense?) Bellarmine clearly saw that Galileo was using Aristotle’s limitations as straw man to attack Christianity and he blunted the attack by clearly annunicating that the Church was ready to accept Galileo’s empiricism, just that they weren’t ready to overturn previously held notions until Galileo had actually empirically proven his notions; Copernicus was the model scientist to Bellarmine’s way of thought: he put forth interesting ideas, allowing people the opportunity to find support for them in case they were ture, without ever insisting that they were true.

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.