Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CarolinaGuitarman

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.


401 posted on 01/20/2006 2:11:59 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies ]


To: jcb8199
If Galileo could have decisively proven that what he was teaching AS fact actually WAS fact, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

He had more than enough evidence to be persuasive. What additional evidence would you require, if you were a contemporary of Galileo's, to accept the solar system? Please name something specific, that would have been a clincher.

The point is that he had plenty of evidence, and of course it was a revolutionary idea. So what? Why threaten him with torture, ban his book, and place him under house arrest for the remainder of his life? What if he had been a total goofball and said that the earth orbits Santa Clause? Then he would have had no evidence at all. Again, so what? He shouldn't have been persecuted. We all understand why the Church did what they did, but I hope we all understand that they were wrong in doing so. They recognize this now, so why can't you. Or do you?

404 posted on 01/20/2006 2:18:38 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies ]

To: jcb8199

If Galileo could have decisively proven that what he was teaching AS fact actually WAS fact..

How? What additional 'proof' has there been since Galileo?

422 posted on 01/20/2006 4:28:02 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies ]

To: jcb8199
"Inquisition, now there's another original argument."

As an argument that the Church did in fact use force against *heretics*, yes. And as an argument that they didn't have to be Catholics anymore, yes. And remember, Protestants were considered heretics too; if you were in Catholic lands and were protestant, and the Inquisition was around, you could have trouble.

The Protestants were of course just as bad weeding out heretics as the Catholics were. There was nothing particularly unique about what the Church did. Again, that isn't the point here as we are discussing the Church's treatment of Galileo.

"Galileo said they were wrong, but offered no proof."

I hope you don't mean he offered no evidence. If you mean prove as in absolute proof, well, the Church didn't have any either. There never will be for a scientific theory.

""Your Honor, my client is not guilty." "Have you any evidence?" "Well, no, but he isn't!" "

Yep, you are claiming he had no evidence. What an ignoramus.

"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."

The historical fact is that these other groups who would have opposed him had no chance to, since he lived in Catholic Italy. I also didn't bring up what the Chinese thought, or the Hindus, or the Muslims. I am sticking to the facts of the case, you are wandering all over with irrelevant points.

"Copernicus said the very same thing (yes, he published the year he died, but his ideas were well known) and nothing happened to him."

No, his book(the intro) said that the model was not true physically. If he had made it clear that he really thought his model was physically correct, and this got out in his lifetime widely, he would have been in a lot of trouble.

"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. "

Before you said that he could have moved somewhere else to escape Church punishment; now you say that everyone was against him, so what would the point have been to run away?
Even IF everybody was against them, they didn't have the power to do anything against him; the Church did. And the Church had no right to silence him.

"If Galileo could have decisively proven that what he was teaching AS fact actually WAS fact, we wouldn't even be having this conversation."

Why didn't the Church have to prove ITS position in the same way you and it demand Galileo had to? You make it sound like Galileo just said, "It's true because I said so." That's not the case at all. He provided evidence for why and how the earth could be moving. Was it all the evidence there is? No, but that's irrelevant. It was at least as good as the evidence the Church had.

The point is, The Church has said that they were wrong, but you are sticking up for their own discarded position.
430 posted on 01/20/2006 5:11:44 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson