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.
/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.
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.
bookmark
Article is filled with historical inaccuracies based on references also filled with historical inaccuracies:
Arabic numerals were not Arabic but Hindu. The Muslims introduced Hindu numerals to the Europeans during their bloody war of conquest against the Europeans, which they had gained in India during their bloody wars of conquest against the Hindus.
The Europeans of that age were attempting to recover much of the classical knowledge that the muslims had either destroyed or were attempting to do so. As the ISIS JV is doing now.
There is ample archeological evidence that ground and polished lenses were in use going back to the Old Kingdom in Egypt for use as eye pieces (sort of a pince-nez style), magnifiers, and telescopes - 2800-3000 BC. Later, both the Romans and the Greeks used lenses in the same ways. They also knew the power of healing and magnification from colored glass balls filled with water.
The Sumerians, the Old Kingdom Egyptians, Greeks, and the Romans all knew the world was round and had developed ways to navigate accurately using sun shadow techniques; all knew the Earth revolved around the Sun.
Their theories of the Universe were far more sophisticated than anything the Europeans came up with and even rivaling what we believe today.
Basically all the Europeans did was reinvent the wheel from the little knowledge that had escaped the wholesale destruction of classical civilization by the Varsity team led by Mohammed and his disciples in their hundred year rein of murder, genocide and terror (632-728 AD) where most of what were Christian lands and bastions of classical civilizations and knowledge were utterly destroyed - millions murdered, enslaved, women en mass sent to harems.
The end of the Dark Ages is roughly 1000 AD, but could be stretched through the Middle Ages (Medieval Ages) to the end of the 15th century and the expulsion of the muslim hoards from Europe. By the start of 15th century there had been some 528 battles against the muslims, most waged on Spanish soil. It was against this background that Galileo began his efforts in rebuilding and reconstructing knowledge of lenses and astronomy, previously known to the then Ancients.
Galileo efforts were made easier with the execution of Girolamo Savonarola, 1452-1498 who lead the Christian effort in burning those books missed by the muslims (The Bonfires of the Vanities).
Galileo’s big sin was attempting to re-write the Bible to fit his theory. That is what got him into the mess with the Church. Also, the single biggest argument against the heliocentric model that Galileo espoused was the lack of proof of stellar parallax. The astronomers of that era were far from the provincial hillbillies some revisionist historians describe.
“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. The Church allowed Galileo to express his scientific theory with the only provision that he treat them as such and not as anything more without sufficient proof. For this reason Galileo went against this provision with a lack of proof and solid arguments to defend his position. Furthermore his personality was noted to be quite rude in general.”
He also published his DELIBERATELY insulting (to the Pope) dialog UNDER THE IMPRIMATER OF THE CHURCH. The guy seems like a real pain in the ass, to be honest.
bookmark