1) He said it was fact and couldn't prove it. Do you not see the disconnect? You are still in the 21st century frame of mind. The Church WAS NOT ALONE in the belief--scientists and Protestants all shared the same view.
2) He said they were wrong and had no PROOF. That is ludicrous! They said "Don't teach it as fact." He taught it as fact. While we now know it IS fact, HE DIDN'T because he couldn't PROVE it. We can, get it? So remove that frame of reference from your argument--HE COULD NOT PROVE HE WAS RIGHT, yet persisted in telling EVERYONE (not just the Church) that they were wrong. Defend that.
3) You are a few hundred years off. The Protestant Reformation ended the Church dominance in Europe,and that was 100 years before. Even before then, the Plague diminished the power of the Church. In the "Dark Ages," sure, the Church was the be-all-and-end-all. Secular authorities were well in power in the 1600s.
4) They didn't use force. Period. He wasn't tortured, he wasn't threatened. Cardinal Bellarmine, the "Hammer" of the Inquisition, spoke to Galileo--didn't threaten, didn't burn, SPOKE. Period.
5) Considering that the Church was a patron of the sciences, they had every right to say that those who were studying on their dime should not preach and teach something contrary to something they believe. It would be like President Bush hiring Al Franken to give a speech about how wonderful Liberalism is. And again, PROTESTANTS AND SCIENTISTS WERE ON THE SAME SIDE AS THE CHURCH! University professors were some of Galileo's fiercest critics. There are Protestants today who insist the world is 6,000 years old, so do you really think there weren't Protestants then who opposed Galileo's work?
6) "Protecting Truth by crushing free inquiry. Nice motto." More like protecting it by not taking the incomplete, and unproven, studies of one man as proven scientific fact. But attempt nice simplification.
Again: So the hell what? What right did they have to use force to make him changed his recant? And so what if Luther would have done the same thing? Two wrongs don't make a right.
"He said they were wrong and had no PROOF. That is ludicrous!"
Theories are never proven in science. He DID have evidence, such as the phases of Venus showing it moved around the Sun.
"HE COULD NOT PROVE HE WAS RIGHT, yet persisted in telling EVERYONE (not just the Church) that they were wrong. Defend that. "
He was entitled to his opinion. The Church was entitled to theirs. They were not entitled to force him to accept their position, or to force him to stop trying to persuade others. You are defending theocratic regulation of speech.
"You are a few hundred years off."
Not in the part of Italy where Galileo lived. There, the Church was the final law. If it wasn't the Law, then they could not have forced Galileo to recant.
"They didn't use force. Period."
So, if Galileo said he wasn't going to abide by the house arrest, they would have let him go? Oh, wait, they wouldn't have. They would have used force.
"He wasn't tortured, he wasn't threatened."
I said, repeatedly now, he wasn't tortured. Throw that straw-man away. His arrest WAS predicated on the threat of force/death if he resisted. Unless you think that we don't force criminals to stay in prison, but instead *invite* them to stay at their own leisure?
"Considering that the Church was a patron of the sciences, they had every right to say that those who were studying on their dime should not preach and teach something contrary to something they believe."
Their dime? You can't be seriously saying that this is about funding? Wow, you're way out there.
" Considering that the Church was a patron of the sciences,"
They were the only patrons?
"There are Protestants today who insist the world is 6,000 years old, so do you really think there weren't Protestants then who opposed Galileo's work?"
Irrelevant. They didn't have him under house arrest (they would have if he had been in a Protestant area, perhaps). The Muslims would have done the same too; who cares? We aren;t talking about them either.
"More like protecting it by not taking the incomplete, and unproven, studies of one man as proven scientific fact. But attempt nice simplification."
They didn;t have to agree with Galileo. They just needed to let him be. Theocrats like you don;t care about free inquiry though.
"Now, had he left the Church and done this entirely on his own, there would've been no problem. Luther lived to see his Reformation completed, didn't he?"
He was Italian; he would have had to fled someone else, and there was no guarantee things would have been better under Luther.
"Hard for the Church to put on trial someone who isn't a member of that Church. He didn't have to recant--he could've left."
If he said he converted, and wasn't a Catholic anymore, do you honestly believe all of his troubles would have gone away? Are you that naive? Wars were fought because people weren't following the *correct* religion. The Church DID put people on trial who were no longer members. They went further than that, they went to war with them (and vise versa or course).
""Infringement" my arse--those are two concepts that largely didn't even enjoy recognition until Locke. Again, you are speaking from a 21st century perspective. We are talking about the 17th."
Rights existed before they were recognized by governments. Are you saying that we created rights?
"Copernicus worked on it for decades and suffered NO "oppression" by the Church. Everyone knew his ideas. No oppression. End of story."
No, they didn't know he meant it as physical reality. If it wasn't for Osiander, the book would have been banned.
" It wasn't condemned, and you cannot say that it would have been."
Yes I can. Everybody after him who claimed that it represented physical reality got into big trouble with the Church. The only thing that saved the book was the intro.
"It only came into controversy because Galileo was teaching it as fact, "fact" he couldn't prove."
That was also Copernicus' position. Before the intro was inserted.
"you see my WRITTEN RESPONSES, responses obviously formulated after READING, and take it as my "illiteracy."
Ok, you are dense then, not completely illiterate. Or just dishonest. I told you Galileo wasn't tortured, you kept saying I said he was. I said that Osiander wrote the intro without Copernicus' approval, and you say I thought Copernicus wrote it. Illiterate was being kind.
" Galileo was wrong to assert AS FACT that the Earth revolved around the Sun, as he couldn't PROVE it."
No, he was right, because he had EVIDENCE. The reason we have the methods and ways of science we do today is because of people like Galileo. He didn't NEED proof. He had evidence.
"He was tossing nearly 1500 years of ACCEPTED, "proven," SCIENTIFIC and religious thought out the window, without sufficient proof."
Horse manure. Who gives a rats ass if it was *accepted* thought that the earth didn't move? Galileo had evidence it did. The Church was wrong to force him to recant.
" You keep forgetting that Galileo's COLLEAGUES, secular scientists and professors, said he was wrong!"
So what? He had evidence he was right. They didn't have to agree with him; just not initiate force to stop him like the Church did.
"Your myopic view of the issue is ridiculous--he was Catholic and was tried in a Catholic court. He could have left the Church "in the interests of science" and suffered nothing at the hands of the Church."
He would have had to sneak out of Italy like a criminal and forfeit his property. Suffered nothing. lol Riiggght. The Church had both both religious AND civil power; that's the crux of the problem.
" You must be blind if you take everything I have said and read as "illiteracy." il·lit·er·ate (Ä-lÄt'Ér-Ät) pronunciation adj. 1. Unable to read and write. 2. Having little or no formal education."
Again, that was the kindest of my available options.
"I am college-educated, and have personally researched everything I have said here--I haven't relied on false assumptions and lies."
You need take off your blinders and do what the Church has done, admit what happened to Galileo was wrong and should never have happened. They are far more enlightened then you on this subject.
"What've you got (other than the Protestant Handbook for Attacking the Catholic Church)?"
My position is the current Church position. Yours is the position of the Church in the 1600's. I am defending freedom of inquiry, you are defending theocratic incursions into free inquiry.