Posted on 03/21/2015 11:41:27 PM PDT by walkinginthedesert
I just realized that there is a typo on the first note
It should say How not Howe
And you were being polite, but Galileo was an ass. He brought the whole thing on himself.
Another point vis a vis pantheism: it is the logical outworking of the pattern of our “sin in Adam.” If the universe is Ours rather than His, we give pantheistic ideas the highball.
It would be unfair to characterize pantheistic societies as having no science or technology. They generally had what they needed to produce the kind of lifestyle they wanted. The actual God kept on revealing truth from above just as the bible says. We have to be careful not to indulge in a kind of group solipsism that pretends that “we” or even “our philosophy” (except what was already in the supernatural realms and we embraced) initiated science. Rather, the imperative to “subdue” the wild world initiated science. When powered by Judeo-Christian worldviews, this science reached far beyond what anyone might have envisioned at the time as necessary for support of their lifestyle. Who needed to know systematic behavior of magnetism or electricity? Who needed to know chemistry that didn’t have the gross production of precious substances from base substances as its goal? Who needed to measure the gargantuan dimensions of the visible universe?
Modern forms of atheism are a vanity only made possible by the coattails of a Judeo-Christian worldview. Westernized society is a victim of its own scientific and technical success, used wrongly. The curse has never left the ground and accordingly, great challenges are left to believers.
It does look like Galileo had no respect for the underpinnings of the natural philosophy he rode upon the crest of. Modern atheistic takes on science, likewise, like to cite him as a champion against a “recalcitrant, backwards” church. They forget that the church ended up embracing the new natural revelations once scriptural repercussions were carefully examined.
If there is a problem in many of the halls of modern fundamentalism, it is ironically an over-scientism. Can we presume on some kind of independent clock that works exactly the same way that our modern technologically developed clocks, operating from the word “go” in the divine acts of creation? In modern parlance, do we refuse to consider embracing a day-age theory of creation because those just have to be 24 x 60 minute days with all the modern implications? Because we invented clocks, did God’s concept of a daily labor punch card need to obey such clocks? Or is the partitioning of the story intended to underscore the divine humility in bestowing the large “days” of eternity in miniature upon the tiny, fleeting earth? We have to remember that God measures us. We cannot measure God.
technologically developed clocks => technologically developed clocks do
/mark
The first is the idea that the universe is comprehensible. Christ is the logos --Truth Itself. Therefore, God's Creation must be intelligible.
Secondly, modern physics arose from the promulgation of the dogma of "Creation from nothing." This cemented the idea of the linear progression of time, rather than eternal cycles. The theories of Buridan, Oresme and Newton followed.
Creation ex nihilo also had an impact on our notion of motion and inertia. The ancient philosopher Aristotle (4th century BC) had taught that matter was eternal (opposite of creation ex nihilo) and so motion must likewise be eternal (i.e., intrinsic). For Aristotle, a thrown object moves because the air closing in behind it pushes it forward. A corollary to Aristotle’s understanding of motion is geocentrism, i.e., that the Earth is at rest while the Sun and planets rotate around us. In other words, if the Earth was moving then we should feel it moving beneath our feet, and since we don’t observe that, the Earth must be at rest at the center of the universe.Aristotle’s view of motion dominated Western thinking for 1,700 years and directly hindered the development of heliocentrism. It was Jean Buridan (14th century), and his successor Nicholas of Oresme (14th century), who developed a new understanding of motion that directly challenged Aristotle’s view (see Stanley L. Jaki and Michel Bumbulis). Buridan believed that everything had a beginning (i.e., creation ex nihilo), hence motion must likewise have a beginning.
Just as it is God who imputed motion to the universe, it is the thrower who imputes motion to the thrown object (not the air). If someone wants to throw something farther, then they simply need to throw it harder. This simple idea became known as “impetus theory.” For a rotating Earth, impetus theory argues that objects on Earth receive the same motion as the Earth and so move in sync with the Earth’s rotation, which is why we don’t fly off the planet’s surface. Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler (16th century) looked to Buridan (rather than Aristotle) for their understanding of motion, which helped eliminate the biggest objection to a heliocentric model of the solar system. Remarkably, impetus theory also anticipated Newton’s first law of motion (17th century).
“In conclusion it is most definitely true that the Galileo case could have been handled better, but the fact is that Galileo is not altogether blameless. Furthermore his personality was noted to be quite rude in general.”
Handled better as in butt out completely. The Church as a civil government was a nightmare that resembled nothing Christ like. When in hell did they get the idea that they could arrest and try people? Utterly unchristian insanity.
So yes, Galileo was blameless. He should have been left alone. Of the church didn’t like his work, his terminology, or his conclusions, the MORAL course for them was to ignore it, forbid it in the church, publish their own opinions, etc. If he says bible verses need change in light of a heliocentric view, the Roman Church had the same options.
And he was “rude”? He should have been. An illegitimate government, ignoring the rights of the individual, and making demands they have no right to, should always be given the finger.
Ill wait now for the legalistic “explanation” that the Vatican wasn’t the government, and is blameless because it would be merely turning him over to the civil government for punishment. But that’s simply intellectually dishonest to blame the ones who do the dirty work.
_________________________________________________________________
Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo
(June 22, 1633)
We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy office during our pleasure, and by way of salutary penance we enjoin that for three years to come you repeat once a week at the seven penitential Psalms. Reserving to ourselves liberty to moderate, commute or take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and penance.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
_________________________________________________________________
In your opinion, was that a just punishment? Or do you think his unalienable Rights were violated?
“but Galileo was an ass. He brought the whole thing on himself.”
One being an ass somehow giving a church the right to arrest and try them is a cornerstone of ISIS. It is wholly against everything Christ lived and taught.
The church in that period was tragically lost spiritually.
If he was an ass, then they could ignore, refute, or forbid their members from referring to it. Anything else made them no better than Stalin, ISIS, King George, the democrat party, or the Nazis.
His quote from Cardinal Bellarmine sums it up:
If there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe, that the earth is in the third heaven, and that the sun does not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me."Cardinal Bellarmine took the reasonable position that he would accept Galileo's theory once convincing evidence was provided. Galileo had the correct answer, but little evidence. Today, we would categorized his view as a "theory," which is what the Church at the time did.
Moreover, Galileo wanted the Church to promote his theory as established fact (which is outside the purview of the Church).
+ + +
But the author leaves out some important facts regarding Copernicus. Not only were several cardinals supporting Copernicus' research into heliocentrism, they helped to fund it.
Copernicus dedicated his book, "On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs" to Pope Paul III, in the hope that the Pope would protect him from antagonistic astronomers and Protestant revolutionaries, or "reformers."
Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, "On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs," in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.
Monty Python has done more to shape people's understanding of the Middle Ages than any history book.
The fact is that the Scholastic age represented the height of Christian culture.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Galileo had these same rights, from God. The church trampled upon them.
So were one or more of his unalienable Rights violated, in your opinion?
Did you read the article? The astronomical research of Copernicus, who was writing books regarding heliocentrism at the same time as Galileo, was funded by several Cardinals. Copernicus even dedicated one of his books on heliocentricity to Pope Paul III, because he felt that the pope might protect him from antagonistic Protestant astronomers, and even Luther himself.
Galileo's "proofs" for heliocentrism were wrong. They were erroneous. He had the correct answer, but no scientific evidence to support his claim. Today, we would classify Galileo's claim as a "theory," which is what the Church did. But Galileo demanded that the Church declare his theory to be fact.
“In 1616, an Inquisitorial commission unanimously declared heliocentrism to be “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.” The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth’s movement “receives the same judgement in philosophy and... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.” (The original document from the Inquisitorial commission was made widely available in 2014.
Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions. On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine’s residence and ordered
“... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.”
— The Inquisition’s injunction against Galileo, 1616.
So no, the Romans were not simply conducting rigorous peer review of a scientific publishing. They were a despotic government. As for the pythons, if it were not basically true, the comedy would have simply made no sense. There is a reason they are poking fun at them. The same comedy would have got them killed at the hands of the church a few centuries earlier.
Look, no sane person today argues that the catholic church today is a murderous, despotic, institution, spreading more fear than Christianity. But back then, it did indeed. The apologetics are a waste of time. And are simply not needed. While we may quibble on doctrine wars, the church today is basically good. The respect one can hold for the church today does not depend on defending those A-holes.
Bullshine. The church itself contradicted that just last year. The Roman inquisition was not a simple search for rigorous academic standards.
By their OWN records, they forbade him to even defend his theories, stop all defense of them, and said they were against the scripture.
But whatever, the arguments about his “proof” etc,, misses the elephant in the room. By what right to they arrest and try ANYONE? Where did Jesus teach that? They made it up out of whole cloth.
“Copernicus even dedicated one of his books on heliocentricity to Pope Paul III, because he felt that the pope might protect him from antagonistic Protestant astronomers, and even Luther himself.”
Picked one gangster to protect him from another. The simple fact is that in that era, a scientist had to be very careful that his work did not threaten the theology of where he lived or he might wind up dead or imprisoned. So that fact alone makes it very specious to argue that that science exploded because of ANY church. At best, the churches were dragged kicking and screaming along. That’s protestants and catholics.
“But Galileo demanded that the Church declare his theory to be fact”.
Then you, as a vatican, simply say,,,,,,,,, “no thank you”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.