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

To: CarolinaGuitarman

1) Research the Inquisition. It is far less intrusive than modern history has led you to believe.

2) So since we haven't pinpointed the exact orbits, the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun? In which case Galileo wasn't right after all?

3) He submitted himself to the authority of the Church. The Church was the religious and secular authority in his region; he could have moved out of such influence. He still would have been under pressure from the scientific crowd, but he did not have to submit himself to their power.

4) Copernicus wrote an intro just the same. I included it in the post, you might see. His beliefs WERE well known. It was not until Galileo taught those beliefs as FACT that Copernicus' work came under fire. He wrote the book, as you will see, after prompting by CATHOLIC friends, including a priest and a cardinal. You have some really misguided perceptions about the age of the Scientific Revolution if you think that Copernicus was alone with his thoughts, that no one else knew them.

5) ...a "state" to whose power the "silenced" submitted himself...

6) I agree only with the desire to protect truth; the Church, while wrong (as I have said repeatedly), was, simply, motivated out of a desire to protect truth. It is hardly science if one man can come along claiming proof of something not only fairly revolutionary (an idea 70 years old vs. an accepted "fact" nearly 1500) but counter-intuitive and beyond the grasp of reason and everyone just says "Hooray for you! You did it!" Science is not that--science is observing, testing, analyzing, recording, and holding your work out to be refuted. Galileo taught it as fact before it was established as such.
And again, he submitted himself to the authority of the Church.

7) "Reason" says that the Earth is stationary--it doesn't feel like its moving, it doesn't look like it's moving, and (apparently) hasn't been proven its moving. Galileo said the opposite, albeit with compelling evidence, but not concrete and final evidence (which apparently still hasn't come...)
As for separation of Church and state, I agree with you. I, however, am capable of looking at it from the historic perspective without the taint of our modern sensibilities.


593 posted on 01/25/2006 12:06:18 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies ]


To: jcb8199
" Copernicus wrote an intro just the same."

NO, he didn't. You just said before that it WASN'T Copernicus who wrote the intro. That is correct. Copernicus believed that the Earth REALLY DID move around the Sun. If THIS view was well known, the book would have been banned.


Now, please tell me why Galileo would have to *prove* beyond doubt his theory when the Church NEVER HAD TO PROVE THEIRS? They OBVIOUSLY didn't, as it is WRONG. You have evaded this question now a few times already.

" "Reason" says that the Earth is stationary"

No it doesn't; you're thinking of common sense. Very different thing.

"Galileo said the opposite, albeit with compelling evidence, but not concrete and final evidence (which apparently still hasn't come...)"

And that evidence, which you require from Galileo, you don't require from the Church. Your double standard is obvious.
596 posted on 01/25/2006 12:30:31 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | 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