Replies

"They put him under arrest for violating an agreement he signed saying he would teach it as a probability, not a fact. How smart is it to flip nearly 1500 years' worth of accepted religious AND scientific knowledge based on the specious observations of ONE man?"

It IS a fact. His observations were NOT specious. The Church was a bully, and deserves all the scorn that can be heaped on it for it's attack on free inquiry. Was it alone in stopping free inquiry? Of course not. Has it changed? Absolutely. Does that make what the Church did to Galileo right? Not in the least. There is NOTHING that can make what it did to him *correct*.

"Not only did Galileo teach it as fact (again, not something he could PROVE and something he said he wouldn't do), he then ventured into the realm of theology."

The only reason he *ventured into the realm of theology*, was because the Church was forcing it's theology into places it didn't belong, and forcing people to accept it's position on pain of death.

"True, the interpretation was wrong--but WE know that now. THEY didn't."

So it is correct for a religious institution to use force to make sure people obey it?

" I'm sure you realize that "heresy" only means "An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs."

I am sure you also know that heresy was an offense that could get you thrown in jail or even killed. It's one thing if the Church wanted to ban Galileo from participating in its ceremonies; it's a completely different thing when they FORCE you to recant.

"The crux of the issue is that Galileo was not tortured (as is claimed), "

Not by me, though he could have been if he didn't obey.

" he was not executed,"

He would have been if he persisted in stating his beliefs.

"he lived comfortably until his death, even (as the above site points out) publishing his best work while under "house arrest."

So it was perfectly OK to force him to recant? And keep him confined? All because he dared to ask the wrong questions?

"As for Copernicus, he did exactly what Galileo had the opportunity to do--"Here's an idea, this looks right."

Of course, he was DEAD when the book was published. And the book did NOT say *This looks right*; it said that it was NOT physically true (from the intro) and it was useful for better calculations of planetary motions.

"The point about Copernicus is that the Church is OBVIOUSLY not an enemy to science or opponent of change."

It absolutely was in the 1500's and 1600's.

"It merely wants to proceed judiciously, with as much knowledge as possible."

Perhaps now it does, but in Galileo's time it assume to have the proper knowledge and was willing to use force against anybody who dared to disagree.

1) WE KNOW it is a fact, and can prove it. He believed it was a fact, stated it WAS a fact, but couldn't PROVE it. You need to take off the 21st century filter--he was saying that nearly 1500 years of accepted (and "proven") scientific and religious dogma was WRONG, something NO ONE should take lightly, and certainly not something one should approach without PROOF. Hence his "specious" claim--he said he had proof, but had none.

2) He was never threatened with death, so that is bogus. The Church wasn't the only one "forcing its theology," Protestants did, and scientists rejected Galileo's assertions. So the Church was not alone in it. It didn't persecute him because he didn't accept "their" viewpoint, he went on trial (religious, not secular) for teaching something that was contrary to what was taught by the Church (and by Protestants as well, don't forget). That's all. They said he can talk about it, but not in a way that says it is CERTAIN, because it WASN'T certain at that time. It was intererested in protecting TRUTH as much as it was still smarting from the Protestant Reformation.

3) They didn't use force. You are still assuming that the myths about torture and painful punishment are truth.

4) Sheesh, do some research on the subject before you regurgitate anti-Catholic B.S. His "recantation" was largely a formality. It did not damage his reputation or work in any way. He published his best scientific work AFTER he was put under house arrest.

5) No, no, no, and no. He wasn't tortured, nor was he threatened. He was not threatened with execution. Copernicus published the book and THEN died; and his book took DECADES of work (which, if the Church was as much an enemy as you claim, they would have stopped him; they certainly wouldn't have asked his help in reconfiguring the ecclesiastical calendar...). Even a brief perusal of his Wikipedia entry shows you are totally wrong:
"When Copernicus book was published, it contained an unauthorized preface by the Lutheran theologian Andreas Osiander. This cleric stated that Copernicus wrote his heliocentric account of the earth's movement as a mere mathematical hypothesis, not as an account that contained truth or even probability. This was apparently written to soften any religious backlash against the book, but there is no evidence that Copernicus considered the heliocentric model as merely mathematically convenient, separate from reality. Copernicus' hypothesis contradicted the account of the sun's movement around the earth that appears in the Old Testament (Joshua 10:13)."
Notice that the "preface" you mentioned was put there by a LUTHERAN theologian, not Copernicus.

6) You seem to be motivated more by anti-Catholicism than a pursuit of truth. Read "How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization," for starters. Follow that up with "Christianity of Trial." Enlighten yourself ("Enlightenment," Kant said, "is man's leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another.")

7) "it assume to have the proper knowledge and was willing to use force against anybody who dared to disagree."
It assumed, along with practically every other scientist and theologin of the day...

Again, drop the anti-Catholicism and READ.