Replies

" I see force as being torture, death, etc. He was not forced in that sense."

He was forced to stay where he was under house arrest. *Arrest* is by it's nature an act of force. If he resisted, the threat of more serious force was there, including death.

"You must see that the Protestant Reformation drastically changed things, and that he COULD have left the Church, and the Church WOULDN'T have been able to try him."

He would have had to have fled like a dog and left his estate to the Church to do so.

" I brought up Luther because he managed to dissent from the Church (he and countless others) and the Church did what?"

Eventually there was war between the Church and the Protestants. Remember, Luther was in Germany and Galileo was in Italy. The Church's center of power was Italy.

"How can the Church arrest and jail someone for heresy if that person is not Catholic?"

Have you ever heard of the Inquisition?

"What happened to Luther--shouts of heresy and...?"

He was protected by Nobles who wanted to be free from Church domination. The Church's grasp didn;t reach as far as it had earlier. Galileo was In Italy.

"He had EVIDENCE but not PROOF."

The Church OBVIOUSLY lacked proof as well, unless you think that the Earth DOESN'T move? :)

"Ah, so the Church had supreme temporal power in the AREA, not on the Continent as you first asserted."

Point to me saying the Church had supreme temporal power on the Continent.

" (I'm reading into what you said--you never said continent, you just said "law of the land" or somesuch)"

Oh, so you just felt free to lie about what I said to build another straw-man. You know, the Church frowns on lying.

"Fact remains it was in power. Was it right? Nope--the Sun is the center of our solar system. Was it within its rights at that time? Yep."

There is no such thing as the right to initiate force.

". Was it a mistake--depends on how you look at it. It was right to not want to take 1500 years of scientific and religious teachings and toss them out because of the (unproven) writings of one man."

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

"And, tying in with another point, the Church was a patron (no, not THE patron, A patron) of science and as such had every right to say what its money paid for--"

So, because the Church paid for some science, it was therefore empowered to force ALL science to do as it wished?

"It's not only about money, but you are questioning their "right" to put him on trial. And what you seem to miss is that he was put ON TRIAL. If it was half as oppressive and angry as you make it out to be, he'd have been locked away and burned at the stake..."

If he hadn't recanted, and resisted, would they have just let him go?

"-Given the history, it's fair to assume that Protestants would've reacted the same way, as would've Muslims (well, maybe not Muslims...) If he was Protestant and in England, he likely would've felt the same fury as he felt in Italy. The Church was not alone in its opposition to his assertions!!!"

And, if you took the time to actually read what I said, you would have known I never said that the Church was alone in it's opinions. This does of course destroy your argument he could have just left and went somewhere else, because, as you have just admitted, the anti-Heliocentric sentiment was widespread.

"Copernicus' work was well know, and the Church had not problem with it being taught or written about as long as it was presented as hypothesis, that which needs to be proven, not FACT."

Yes, I have already said this a number of times. Problem is, Copernicus WANTED to present it as physical reality; if Osiander had not inserted the intro, the book would have been taken to be pushing for the reality of the heliocentric model. And the book would have NEVER been tolerated as it was.

"The biggest problem I have with the "Galileo Affair" is people who use it as PROOF that the Church is hostile to science"

My position is that it is far less hostile than it ever was. The Church agress with me that the treatment of Galileo was wrong, why can't you?

"Singling out the Church is anti-Catholic."

Who was I supposed to implicate, the Hindus? If we are talking about Galileo, we are talking about the Catholic response.

Inquisition, now there's another original argument. Yet another misrepresented and misunderstood topic (which, by my saying so, will undoubtedly cause you to assume that I advocate the Inquisition, or approve of its tactics...)

As for evidentiary proof, the Church (along with Protestants and professors and scientists...) relied on centuries-old ideas and the (faulty) biblical interpretation of the day. Galileo said they were wrong, but offered no proof. THERE'S a strong argument... "Your Honor, my client is not guilty." "Have you any evidence?" "Well, no, but he isn't!"

I don't know what else to say. You single out the Church because it put him on trial, you criticize it because it was wrong, standing in the way of "free thought" and so on, and yet you ignore the fact that the Church was not alone in their opposition to Galileo. Copernicus said the very same thing (yes, he published the year he died, but his ideas were well known) and nothing happened to him. Galileo was on trial not just with the Church but in the minds of EVERYONE, because he taught as fact that which he could not prove as fact--scientists, professors, and theologians alike all looked at him the same; it just happened that he was under the Church's jurisdiction.

I'm at a loss for words. If you would just do some cursory reading, you would see what I am saying. It is not that hard to find the meat of the matter--it was failure of all parties, not just the Church. If Galileo could have decisively proven that what he was teaching AS fact actually WAS fact, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.