Regarding Galileo and his "martyrdom"

[Iceberg]

Galileo pissed the church off by being one of the most amazing assholes in all of history. He was belittling to his opponents, regardless of their skills in debate and the science they had at hand. Think of how pissed you would be if someone said to you in a debate "well, that is a good point, but you're still a stupid motherfucker."
Was the church wrong, defintely, was Galileo absolutely idiotic in his repeated antagonisms of the church, absolutely.
One should note that most of the important church officials agreed with him on heliocentricism, including the Popes nephew. He lost on his own incompetance with dealing with authority, not on the merits of his arguments.

In any age, insulting your employer and calling him an idiot in whatever public forum you could get your hands on (which Galileo did) is a great way to get your ass fired and blacklisted from any job more sensitive than the time-adjusted equivalent of burger-flipping for the rest of your life. And insulting ANY authority figure in the 1600s was a pretty well guaranteed death sentence; additionally, a LOT of authorities were FAR more aggressive and FAR nastier about executing that death sentence than the Church was. If Galileo had pulled the same shit with a King or a Duke he could have expected months or years of brutal torture (the Inquisition generally found torture distateful because confessions extracted under torture were seen as theologically suspect) followed by being marched out in the royal square for his beheading and subsequent piking.

[tharkûn]

Galileo got into trouble because he challenged the Church's authority on science.
Questioning the Church in one field, opens the door to questioning its authority in other fields, which is something the Church could not allow.

Galileo challenged the Church by supporting the Copernican model as a fact, not just a useful theory.

Kepler supported it as a fact as well. Further the official church astronomical model had only been recently changed to Tychonian. The 1616 decree argued that heliocentrism was contrary to both philosophy (more or less crude science) and scripture. The Catholic church at this point in time is cares exceedingly about correct doctrine and hence people who espouse incorrect doctrines are suspect. Galileo made the mistakes of: insulting those who could help him, ridiculing the Pope, and standing on poor scientific ground. Other Copernicans who did not make those mistakes were not blacklisted.

He did not insult the Pope, he dedicated his books to him.

Putting the words of the Pope into a character called Simplicio and using the inanity of dialogue for Simplicio compared to Salviati and Sagredo was insulting. Wether Galileo meant it to be insulting, Urban VIII found it to be, severing ties with a close friend and never renewing his former relationship.

Galileo ridiculed the armchair scientists and the philosophers that state their opinions about the natural world as a fact, without lifting their eyes from their books (this did not include Aristotle himself).

Galileo ridiculed EVERYONE. He not only attacked Aristotelian astronomy, but also Tychonian. At the time, Tychonian models were superior to Copernican. Tycho Brahe actually frigging calculated out the parrallax problem, built a new model of the solar system, and had YEARS worth of experimental data backing him up. Galileo elected to ridicule all that work, in many cases by attacking an Aristotelian strawman. When pressed about the problem of parrallax and Copernican cosmology - Galileo had no answer yet called his opponents fools anyway. Quite frankly the people and work Galileo ridiculed didmore and better observation than he did.

Even though some Church officials might have agreed with him, Galileo's defiance could have undermined the Church's authority in other fields, something that could not be allowed in the Counterreformation climate.

Catholicism was in a midst of purging the faith of bad ideas, essentually counteracting the claims of protestants that the Catholic Church held incorrect doctrine. The Church rejected Copernican theory not solely on the basis of scripture, but upon its inaccuracies with respect to nature. The Copernican view was repugnant because it was demonstrably wrong. The inquisition was correct to decry Copernicism as being incorrect, they just had the wrong reason for so doing.

Frankly the idea that a threat to the Church's authority at that period in time would be allowed to live, let alone in house arrest is absurd. Bruno did actively challenge Church authority, his burned at the stake with his tongue nailed to his jaw. That is what happened to threat's to the Church's authority.

[Dark Hellion]

Exactly Iceberg.
And again, please note that the INQUISITION decided that Galileo should do private penance and IIRC change one line in his book, in fact, not even edit the line, simply make a different character say it, as was the Papal mandate given when the church payed for his book (the church did pay IIRC, though its been about 2 months since I last read Stillman Drakes biogrophy of Galileo).

[Il Saggiatore]

tharkûn,
you do not understand my point.
I am not saying that Galileo was always and only right in his theories, and that this is why the Church went after him.
I am not saying that he was the best scientist and a role model for scientists.

This is what I am saying:

He defied the Church's authority by saying that true knowledge about the natural world does not come from the opinions of authors, but from observations and experiment.

Yes, he ridiculed the Pope's favorite doctrine about the theories of Man, by putting it into Simplicio's mouth.
Galileo defied that doctrine by supporting the position that Man can reach true knowledge about the natural world.
Knowledge reached by demonstration, such as mathematical theorems, is as true as God's knowledge.
Man might not reach knowledge of everything, but he can reach true knowledge about something.

The Church rejected Copernican theory not solely on the basis of scripture, but upon its inaccuracies with respect to nature.

Since Copernicanism was just a theory, what makes you think that the Church's officials gave a rat's ass about its agreement with observations?

The Copernican view was repugnant because it was demonstrably wrong.

When Galileo discussed his principle of relativity, he pointed out that geocentrism and heliocentrism were not distinguishable from astronomical observations, and dynamical experiments were also not helpful (remember the thought experiment with the ship?).
So, how did they demonstrate it was wrong?

The inquisition was correct to decry Copernicism as being incorrect, they just had the wrong reason for so doing.

If they condemned it for the wrong reasons, they were not correct to do so.

[tharkûn]

Galileo defied that doctrine by supporting the position that Man can reach true knowledge about the natural world.

So did Kepler. So did Brahe. So did members of the Inquisition. Christian theology held that the natural record was a divine revelation from God as was scripture.

Knowledge reached by demonstration, such as mathematical theorems, is as true as God's knowledge.

Ever wonder WHY members of the Inquisition itself were Copernican and the majority were Tychonian rather Aristotilean as the church had been for hundreds of years? Because the math worked better.

Since Copernicanism was just a theory, what makes you think that the Church's officials gave a rat's ass about its agreement with observations?

The fact that they cited its disagreements when calling it false.

So, how did they demonstrate it was wrong?

Parrallax of the distant stars was the biggie. If earth is revolving around Sol the relative position of distant stars should change slightly, this is actually observed today. Brahe actually ran the numbers and reached the only two possible conclusions:
1. The stars are an innumerable distance away and the parrallax is too small to be measured.
2. The earth does not orbit the sun.

In the 1800's astronomers finally measured the parrallax, with telescopes far beyond what any 16th century astronomer dreamed to be possible. Back in Galileo's day the distances Brahe was talking about were laughably absurd, the simplest explanation was Tychonianism.

If they condemned it for the wrong reasons, they were not correct to do so.

They condmended it because theory did not match observation. They thought the source of the error was the heliocentrism; in reality it was the circular orbits. Once a superior heliocentric model came along, the proponderance of evidence switched the other way and Tychonianism was abandoned.

[Il Saggiatore]

Galileo defied that doctrine by supporting the position that Man can reach true knowledge about the natural world.

So did Kepler. So did Brahe. So did members of the Inquisition. Christian theology held that the natural record was a divine revelation from God as was scripture.

Knowledge reached by demonstration, such as mathematical theorems, is as true as God's knowledge.

Ever wonder WHY members of the Inquisition itself were Copernican and the majority were Tychonian rather Aristotilean as the church had been for hundreds of years? Because the math worked better.

Since Copernicanism was just a theory, what makes you think that the Church's officials gave a rat's ass about its agreement with observations?

The fact that they cited its disagreements when calling it false.

So, how did they demonstrate it was wrong?

Parrallax of the distant stars was the biggie. If earth is revolving around Sol the relative position of distant stars should change slightly, this is actually observed today. Brahe actually ran the numbers and reached the only two possible conclusions:
1. The stars are an innumerable distance away and the parrallax is too small to be measured.
2. The earth does not orbit the sun.

In the 1800's astronomers finally measured the parrallax, with telescopes far beyond what any 16th century astronomer dreamed to be possible. Back in Galileo's day the distances Brahe was talking about were laughably absurd, the simplest explanation was Tychonianism.

If they condemned it for the wrong reasons, they were not correct to do so.

They condmended it because theory did not match observation. They thought the source of the error was the heliocentrism; in reality it was the circular orbits. Once a superior heliocentric model came along, the proponderance of evidence switched the other way and Tychonianism was abandoned.

So, you say Galileo was condemned because he was demonstrated wrong.
Then could you explain this:

...it was decided by the Holy Congregation of the Index that this opinion, taken absolutely, is repugnant to Holy Scripture and is to be admitted only suppositionally, in the way that Copernicus takes it.

It is time for you to provide evidence that the Holy Office condemned the Copernican theory because it did not match observations, rather than because heliocentrism -- as a fact -- contradicted the Holy Scripture.

How about this:

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture:...

(bolding mine)
So, where do they say that Galileo's theories did not match observations?

Also:

Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture.

(bolding mine)
Where do they show that it does not match observations?



By the way, the Pope's favrite doctrine was that no theory made by Man could be considered true (as in True Knowledge), because this would put boundaries on God's omnipotence.

[Dark Hellion]

IL saggiatore get this, THE PAPAL CONDEMNATION WAS NOT THE MAJORITY OF THE CHURCH'S STANCE!
Galileo was a rather good scientist, but calling him a perfect scientist is rather absurd. If you want to read about him, get Stillman Drake's biography of Galileo's science. It costs lik $12 and explains pretty clearly why Galileo was "persecuted" and it isn't because the church where big meanies.
Galileo refused to give his theory time to gain acceptance, because like it or not, there was no way to prove with the science of his time wether the Copernican or Tychonian system was right. Had he not gone to rome to accost church scientists and church officials he would have lived out a rather boring and extremely productive life. Unfortunately for him, he chose to singlehandedly take on the Catholic Church, and to do so without good evidence to back him (because in those days, the Church did consider your evidence). He was an utter idiot when it came to understanding politics and social behavior, and he payed for his idiocy.

[Il Saggiatore]

IL saggiatore get this, THE PAPAL CONDEMNATION WAS NOT THE MAJORITY OF THE CHURCH'S STANCE!

...it was decided by the Holy Congregation of the Index that this opinion, taken absolutely, is repugnant to Holy Scripture and is to be admitted only suppositionally, in the way that Copernicus takes it.

(bolding mine)
The Church has a hierarchic structure: if the Pope, Jesus' Vicar and Head of the Church, endorses the decision of the Holy Congregation, what would the Church's stance be?

Galileo was a rather good scientist, but calling him a perfect scientist is rather absurd.

I am not saying that Galileo was always and only right in his theories, and that this is why the Church went after him.
I am not saying that he was the best scientist and a role model for scientists.

Did I say that Galileo was perfect?

If you want to read about him, get Stillman Drake's biography of Galileo's science. It costs lik $12 and explains pretty clearly why Galileo was "persecuted" and it isn't because the church where big meanies.

Since I am not at home, my main source is this:
Storia della fisica moderna e contemporanea ("History of moderna and contemporary physics"), by Enrico Bellone, prof. of History of Science at the University of Padua.

Galileo refused to give his theory time to gain acceptance, because like it or not, there was no way to prove with the science of his time wether the Copernican or Tychonian system was right.

When Galileo discussed his principle of relativity, he pointed out that geocentrism and heliocentrism were not distinguishable from astronomical observations, and dynamical experiments were also not helpful (remember the thought experiment with the ship?).

He seemed to be aware of that.

Had he not gone to rome to accost church scientists and church officials he would have lived out a rather boring and extremely productive life. Unfortunately for him, he chose to singlehandedly take on the Catholic Church, and to do so without good evidence to back him (because in those days, the Church did consider your evidence). He was an utter idiot when it came to understanding politics and social behavior, and he payed for his idiocy.

Galileo: I was in Rome in the year 1616; then I was here in the second year of His Holiness Urban VIII's pontificate; and lastly I was here three years ago, the occasion being that I wanted to have my book printed. The occasion for my being in Rome in the year 1616 was that, having heard objections to Nicolaus Copernicus's opinion on the earth's motion, the sun's stability, and the arrangement of the heavenly spheres, in order to be sure of holding only holy and Catholic opinions, I came to hear what was proper to hold in regard to this topic.

(bolding mine)

Why do I get the impression that you have not read my posts?

[tharkûn]

It is time for you to provide evidence that the Holy Office condemned the Copernican theory because it did not match observations, rather than because heliocentrism -- as a fact -- contradicted the Holy Scripture.

Very good historical sources have already been cited, you choose to ignore those. If I have time I go raid the footnotes of a library copy, suffice it to say that the Inquisition did in fact use natural observation in their deliberations. How else do you explain the advent of Tychonism? Nothing in scripture comes remotely close to describing it.

You choose to ignore the well document biographies already listed here in favor of your own deluded interpretation. House arrest, at the time in question, was as lenient as all hell. If, as you ascert, Galileo was challenging the church then he'd have been burned at the stake if they were feeling merciful that day.

So, where do they say that Galileo's theories did not match observations?

Several decades prior when the Castelli letter and an earlier Copernican debate occurred.

By the way, the Pope's favrite doctrine was that no theory made by Man could be considered true (as in True Knowledge), because this would put boundaries on God's omnipotence.

There was an philosophy within the Catholic Church that should evidence contrary to one interpretation of scripture arise then it therefore shows that the interpretation of scripture is incorrect. Galileo explicitly stated this doctrine, it was reported to and reviewed by the Inquisition, and it NOTHING HAPPENED.

Get this through your skull this was not Galileo's first run with the inquisition, nor was this the first time the Pope's interpretation had been challenged. What WAS different was the fact that Galileo had insulted the Pontifix Maximus as well as alienated virtually every supporter he had. Given the limits of an inquisitorial court he the wording of the charges had to be theological. The fact remains that Kepler - an admitted HERETIC - lived concurrently with Galileo was a bigger and better proponent of heliocentrism and was not hammered by the powers that were. Hell Kepler was specificly excluded from a protestant expulsion order.

For all you ranting about Galileo being a challenge to Church authority it still comes down to the fact that we have examples of real challenges to Church authority - they die horrible deaths and more convincing heliocentrists - who weren't blacklisted. Galileo's punishment was FAR to lenient for a threat to the Church and far too excessive for a Copernican.

When Galileo discussed his principle of relativity, he pointed out that geocentrism and heliocentrism were not distinguishable from astronomical observations, and dynamical experiments were also not helpful (remember the thought experiment with the ship?).

He seemed to be aware of that.

He was in error. Parrallax was a difference between Tychonian and Copernican models. It is the major reason why Brahe and most of the literate members of society subscribed adopted that astronomical model.

Why do I get the impression that you have not read my posts?

Because you are a dumbass who knows nothing about the time period in question who thinks that a challenger to papal authority wouldn't be broken on the wheel, burnt at the stake, or otherwise killed. If you had a better understanding of the time period (i.e. the lives of Kepler, Bruno, Brahe, etc.) you'd not be so clueless.

[Dark Hellion]

I just found that I do in fact have Drake's book in my bookcase. Do you think it would be worthwhile to start posting quotes, or do you think they will be ignored as many of yours have??

[The Dark]

"The 'Galileo Affair' is the most frequently discussed case of a conflict between science and religion. An oversimplified and false view of it is that Galileo became a martyr of science because of the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to science, but it is now commonly agreed that the facts are quite otherwise. The church had understandable reasons for refusing to reinterpret the Bible in Galileo's favor: Galileo was never able to produce the proof he needed, and the waters were muddied by Galileo's academic enemies, and by several misunderstandings, basic mistakes, missed opportunities, and complex theological debates that were rooted in the Protestant Reformation" - from Science and Religion, edited by Gary B. Ferngren.

(bold added for emphasis). Galileo could not provide proof of his theory. Under the scientific method, his theory was no better than heliocentrism, as it did not have greater predictive power. While it is more similar to current theories on the surface, it was so wrong as to be useless from a modern viewpoint.

In fact, Galileo was ordered on February 26, 1616, to not publish anything on heliocentrism, as Pope Paul V's theologians believed it was formally heretical, a decision published by the Congregation of the Index on March 5, 1616 (Galileo was thus informed before the decision, in order to protect him). In 1623, upon the election of his friend Maffeo Barberini as Pope Urban VIII, Galileo asked him if he could write about heliocentrism. The Pope had not been informed of the previous meeting (which had gone through Cardinal Robert Bellarmine), and gave approval as long as it stayed at a hypothetical level. Upon being presented with the Holy Office's record of the Bellarmine-Galileo meeting, Urban VIII felt Galileo had attempted to take untoward advantage of his friendship, particularly when Urban's own views on humanity were disparaged in Galileo's writings, put in the mouth of a character named Simplicio. - information taken from the essay Galileo Galilei, by Dr. Richard J. Blackwell, professor emeritus of philosophy, Saint Louis University.

[Il Saggiatore]

It is time for you to provide evidence that the Holy Office condemned the Copernican theory because it did not match observations, rather than because heliocentrism -- as a fact -- contradicted the Holy Scripture.

Very good historical sources have already been cited, you choose to ignore those.

I looked at the thread.
Battlehymn Republic, in the OP, and Dark Hellion gave one reference each.
I provided my main source (Bellone's book) and two links: one to Galileo's works, and one about the Trial (which I quoted).
You, on the other hand, have not provided any reference.

If I have time I go raid the footnotes of a library copy, suffice it to say that the Inquisition did in fact use natural observation in their deliberations. How else do you explain the advent of Tychonism? Nothing in scripture comes remotely close to describing it.

[About the 1616 admonition]...it was decided by the Holy Congregation of the Index that this opinion, taken absolutely, is repugnant to Holy Scripture and is to be admitted only suppositionally, in the way that Copernicus takes it.

(bolding mine)

...and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture:...

(bolding mine)

Do your "very good historical sources" explain why the Church's record condemned Copernicus theory because it is "contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture", and not because it does not match the observations?
They don't seem to care whether the Bible matches the observations.

You choose to ignore the well document biographies already listed here in favor of your own deluded interpretation.

I gave full reference of my main source.
Since you have not backed up anything you said, I will take Bellone's word over yours.

House arrest, at the time in question, was as lenient as all hell. If, as you ascert, Galileo was challenging the church then he'd have been burned at the stake if they were feeling merciful that day.

Apparently you missed Galileo's recantation.
Galileo challenged the Church because he thought he could away with it.
Had he stayed in the Republic of Venice (that is, in Padua), he probably would not have been subjected to the Trial.

So, where do they say that Galileo's theories did not match observations?

Several decades prior when the Castelli letter and an earlier Copernican debate occurred.

Do you mean this letter?

In regard to the first general point of the Most Serene Ladyship, it seems to me very prudent of her to propose and of you to concede and to agree that the Holy Scripture can never lie or err, and that its declarations are absolutely and inviolably true. I should have added only that, through the Scripture cannot err, nevertheless some of its interpreters and expositors can sometimes err in various ways. One of these would be very serious and very frequent, namely to want to limit oneself always to the literal meaning of the words; for there would thus emerge not only various contradictions but also serious heresies and blasphemies, and it would be necessary to attribute to God feet, hands and eyes, as well as bodily and human feelings like anger, regret, hate and sometimes even forgetfulness of things past and ignorance of future ones. Thus in the Scripture one finds many propositions which look different from the truth if one goes by the literal meaning of the words, but which are expressed in this manner to accommodate the incapacity of common people; likewise, for the few who deserve to be separated from the masses, it is necessary that wise interpreters produce their true meaning and indicate the particular reasons why they have been expressed by means of such words.

(bolding mine)
The first point is about the Holy Scripture.

Given this, and moreover it being obvious that two truths can never contradict each other, the task of wise interpreters is to strive to find the true meanings of scriptural passages agreeing with those physical conclusions of which we are already certain and sure from clear sensory experience or from necessary demonstrations. Furthermore, as I already said, though the Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, because of the mentioned reasons many passages admit of interpretations far removed from the literal meaning, and also we cannot assert with certainty that all interpreters speak by divine inspiration; hence I should think it would be prudent not to allow anyone to oblige scriptural passages to have to maintain the truth of any physical conclusions whose contrary could ever be proved to us by the senses and demonstrative and necessary reasons.

(bolding mine)
Observations and experiments overrule literal interpretation of the Holy Scripture in matters of physics.

Let us then assume and concede to the opponent that the words of the sacred text should be taken precisely in their literal meaning, namely that in answer to Joshua’s prayers God made the sun stop and lengthened the day, so that as a result he achieved victory;...

Discussion about a biblical passage.

I don't see any discussion about Galileo's theories.
Of course, since you have not provided a reference, this might not be the letter you meant.

By the way, the Pope's favorite doctrine was that no theory made by Man could be considered true (as in True Knowledge), because this would put boundaries on God's omnipotence.

There was an philosophy within the Catholic Church that should evidence contrary to one interpretation of scripture arise then it therefore shows that the interpretation of scripture is incorrect. Galileo explicitly stated this doctrine, it was reported to and reviewed by the Inquisition, and it NOTHING HAPPENED.

From the letter I quoted, Galileo's position was that the Bible is not a textbook of physics and astronomy, and it is aimed to fairly uneducated people.
In matters of Faith it is to be taken literally, but in matters of physics and astronomy it is not.
The Church was more than happy to interpret the Bible, however it used this authority in interpreting the Holy Scripture to condemn the Copernican theory.

Get this through your skull this was not Galileo's first run with the inquisition, nor was this the first time the Pope's interpretation had been challenged.

Point out where I say that it was.

What WAS different was the fact that Galileo had insulted the Pontifix Maximus as well as alienated virtually every supporter he had.

He insulted the Pope by putting into Simplicio's mouth the Pope's favorite doctrine about how the theories of Man cannot be proven true.
Doctrine which is the opposite of Galileo's.

Given the limits of an inquisitorial court he the wording of the charges had to be theological. The fact remains that Kepler - an admitted HERETIC - lived concurrently with Galileo was a bigger and better proponent of heliocentrism and was not hammered by the powers that were. Hell Kepler was specificly excluded from a protestant expulsion order.

Are you aware that outside the State of the Church, the Church had to rely on the temporal powers to persecute heretics?
If Galileo had stayed in Padua, do you think he would have been subjected to the Trial?

For all you ranting about Galileo being a challenge to Church authority it still comes down to the fact that we have examples of real challenges to Church authority - they die horrible deaths and more convincing heliocentrists - who weren't blacklisted. Galileo's punishment was FAR to lenient for a threat to the Church and far too excessive for a Copernican.

Galileo recanted: this was more valuable than killing him.
And show me that the Church could have prosecuted the others without the help of the local temporal powers.
And show me that the non-blacklisted authors published books where they promoted heliocentrism as a fact, and not just a theory.

When Galileo discussed his principle of relativity, he pointed out that geocentrism and heliocentrism were not distinguishable from astronomical observations, and dynamical experiments were also not helpful (remember the thought experiment with the ship?).

He seemed to be aware of that.

He was in error. Parrallax was a difference between Tychonian and Copernican models. It is the major reason why Brahe and most of the literate members of society subscribed adopted that astronomical model.

That did not stop the Church from condemning the heliocentrism because it is "contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture".

By the way, Brahe did not measure any parallax of the star, because they are too far away. He did not reach the accuracy necessary to measure the parallax.
Now, can you explain exactly why you think that Galileo was wrong about the heliocentric and geocentric model being distinguishable from astronomical observations?

Why do I get the impression that you have not read my posts?

Because you are a dumbass...

Thank you for proving that you don't pay attention, or don't understand what I write.
That remark was not directed at you.

...who knows nothing about the time period in question who thinks that a challenger to papal authority wouldn't be broken on the wheel, burnt at the stake, or otherwise killed. If you had a better understanding of the time period (i.e. the lives of Kepler, Bruno, Brahe, etc.) you'd not be so clueless.

Where are your sources?
Did you miss Galileo's recantation?

Can you actually back up your assertions?
Because so far you have not.

[Darth Wong]

Exactly what is Tharkun arguing again, apart from trying to make himself look like a sophistic jackass? Was Galileo forced to recant by the church because of his ideas? Yes. Does this represent a clear-cut example of the church persecuting people for the "crime" of not saying what the Church commands them to say? Yes. Does it represent a clear-cut case of the church asserting dictatorial control over science? Yes.

Were there others who were treated even worse by the church? Yes. Does this refute the above? No. Does it matter whether Galileo was a particularly good scientist? Again, no.

[Dark Hellion]

The thing is Mr. Wong, that the Church as a whole did not care what-so-ever about Galileo and many members of the Church supported him. Only the fact that the Pope gave an order to punish Galileo, much of which was brought on by Galileo's own antogonzing, is what got him punished and censured. Any hierarchal organization would have done the same to Galileo, whether it was the Church, the State or simply a University, if you piss off the head you get shafted.
i think is point is that using Galileo as an example of Church persecution is probably not that great of an example. The Church persecuted many others to a much greater degree for much lesser crimes than Galileo. Galileo was a asshole who made fun of the authoritative figure of his area and got hurt. He deserves very little pity for his own arrogance and idiocy.

[Darth Wong]

Any hierarchal organization would have done the same to Galileo, whether it was the Church, the State or simply a University, if you piss off the head you get shafted.

In case the FUCKING OBVIOUS somehow escaped you, let me remind you that if you piss off the head of a university, he cannot force you to recant upon pain of death. Nor would he ask you to recant whatever theory you were pushing rather than asking for a direct apology.

No doubt you and other apologists will point out that royalty of the era behaved in the same way. To which I will respond that NO ONE RUNS AROUND DEFENDING THE BEHAVIOUR OF MEDIEVAL ROYALTY.

[Dark Hellion]

Oh, I am not defending their behavior, but Galileo was not blameless in the affair. He was told many times that he could get out without any confrontion and without changing his theories and every time he ignored advice.

[tharkûn]

IS:

He defied the Church's authority by saying that true knowledge about the natural world does not come from the opinions of authors, but from observations and experiment.

When the Catholic Church of the 17th century thought you defied their authority you ended up dead, there is no way the Chruch is going to sponsor the work of someone who defies them.

Do your "very good historical sources" explain why the Church's record condemned Copernicus theory because it is "contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture", and not because it does not match the observations?

The primary sources include people like Cardinal Bellarmine. His stance:

I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me.



Notice a cardinal of the Inquisition held the same opinion as Galileo - that demostrations of contradiction between science and the scripture entail misintrepretation of scripture. Far from being a radical threat to Chruch authority, Galileo held the some position as the Pope's nephew.

Are you aware that outside the State of the Church, the Church had to rely on the temporal powers to persecute heretics?

Yes. Are you aware that Kepler worked under Rudolf II who was notoriously counter reformation Catholic? Who had to sede control of around half the realm to his brother in order to stop the Hungarian revolts he brought about from persecuting the heretics?

If the Chruch had a problem with Kepler, Rudolf II would have gladly signed his death warrant.

If Galileo had stayed in Padua, do you think he would have been subjected to the Trial?

That depends on wether or not he had an extremely powerful protector within the Venetian Republic. Despite the patronage of the de Medici Galileo was offered the choice of going to Rome of his own free will or in chains. The Venetians did defy the pope, but rarely for one man.

I'd bet on yes anyways.

Observations and experiments overrule literal interpretation of the Holy Scripture in matters of physics.

In other words he agrees with Cardinal Bellarmine.

The Church was more than happy to interpret the Bible, however it used this authority in interpreting the Holy Scripture to condemn the Copernican theory.

The inquisition kept an escape clause open. While the Church fathers interpreted the scripture to mean that solar system was Ptolomean, when Brahe came up with a superior system that was adopted. Only the Pope is incapable of error in Catholic theology and only then when he speaks under certain circumstances - and even that is a modern invention. At the time is was beleived that the church fathers could interpret the bible wrong, and that is what was eventually concluded.

Galileo recanted: this was more valuable than killing him.

No it wasn't. Within a short while the "it still moves" propoganda was spreading like wildfire. Further what is the value of one Copernican's recantation when others like Kepler and Torichelli were still out there?

And show me that the non-blacklisted authors published books where they promoted heliocentrism as a fact, and not just a theory.

Do you understand how the publishing business went back then? First you floated your idea to the censors, they checked it against Church strictures. Then you got permission, wrote the manuscript, handed it back over the censors, they made any changes if needed, and then the book was published. A few individuals managed to get around this, but by and large if you wished to publish you had to toe the line. This is the 17th century here, pushing the envelope other something as trivial as wether you were argueing in fact or in hypothetical terms was not done - if you rocked the boat you could lose your entire lively hood which depended entirely upon patronage.

Numerous other scientists were Copernican and held it to be fact, notably Torichelli, however they did not have Galileo's problems.

Further Galileo himself maintained that the Dialogue was a hypothetical treatment of Copernicanism.

By the way, Brahe did not measure any parallax of the star, because they are too far away. He did not reach the accuracy necessary to measure the parallax.
Now, can you explain exactly why you think that Galileo was wrong about the heliocentric and geocentric model being distinguishable from astronomical observations?

I know that, Brahe knew that. He actually told Kepler that either the stars was so ludicrously distant that parrallax couldn't be measured or that heliocentrism was wrong. At that point in time the principle of parsimony was on the latter. They didn't even have named numbers (i.e. billion, trillion, etc.) describing the size of distance required to ignore parrallax. Given a complete lack of understanding about gravity and cosmic distances, why wouldn't you assume that the sun revolves around the earth and all the other planets revolve around the sun?

Where are your sources?

Well for one I go with Cardinal Bellarmine who holds the very same doctrine as Galileo, you know the one which challenges church authority


For another I quote Augustine:
"One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."

For another let us turn to Galileo:
"Many years ago, at the beginning of the uproar against Copernicus, I wrote a very long essay showing, largely by means of the authority of the Fathers, how great an abuse it is to want to use Holy Scripture so much when dealing with questions about natural phenomena, and how it would be most advisable to prohibit the involvement of Scripture in such disputes; when I am less troubled, I shall send you a copy."

In short Galileo was not challenging the authority of the Chruch and hence his forced recanting in 1633 occurred because of something published in that, not a an opinion he had held and expounded upon to numerous individuals (his letters to Archduke Leopold and Diodata survive to this day). The only thing that changes from his earlier opinions when he first goes before the inquisition and later is that he has managed to anger the pope and alienate his supporters.

Exactly what is Tharkun arguing again, apart from trying to make himself look like a sophistic jackass?

"The Church went after Galileo because he supported the position that theology and philosophy do not overrule observations and experiments when it comes to understanding the natural world."

The Church went after Galileo for pissing off the man in the big hat. Galileo's opinions about interpreting scripture in light of observation are well known. Further his opinion is directly shared by the cardinal who first investigated him before the Inquisition - if evidence arises which contradicts the interpretation of scripture, then the interpretation must be wrong.

Galileo was tried on a charge of convenience for pissing off the Pope, not because he was a challenge to church authority.

Was Galileo forced to recant by the church because of his ideas? Yes. Does this represent a clear-cut example of the church persecuting people for the "crime" of not saying what the Church commands them to say? Yes. Does it represent a clear-cut case of the church asserting dictatorial control over science? Yes.

Why did they do it? Because he was a rabble rousing demagogue that was threatening the Chruch? No those types lived far shorter and more painful lives, they did it because he pissed off the man with big hat.

WHAT happened is fairly obvious - the Catholic church were bunch of assholes who stuck their heads into a scientific debate and forced a man to recant on trumped up charges with fabricated evidence. WHY it happened is where the question between IS and myself arises. He thinks that Galileo was brought to trial for holding a doctrine that Augustine held, I think Galileo was brought to trial because he wase abrasive and pissed off a man you decidedly didn't want to be pissed off at you.

[Il Saggiatore]

He defied the Church's authority by saying that true knowledge about the natural world does not come from the opinions of authors, but from observations and experiment.

When the Catholic Church of the 17th century thought you defied their authority you ended up dead, there is no way the Chruch is going to sponsor the work of someone who defies them.

The fact that Galileo was put on trial, and then recanted, escaped you completely.
Why would they have put him to death?

Do your "very good historical sources" explain why the Church's record condemned Copernicus theory because it is "contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture", and not because it does not match the observations?

The primary sources include people like Cardinal Bellarmine. His stance:

I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me.

"But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me."
This is exactly the same attitude modern creationists have when they ask for evidence of evolution.

Notice a cardinal of the Inquisition held the same opinion as Galileo - that demostrations of contradiction between science and the scripture entail misintrepretation of scripture. Far from being a radical threat to Chruch authority, Galileo held the some position as the Pope's nephew.

Which does not explain why the heliocentrism was condemned as "contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture".
And I never said Galileo himself was a radical threat: the position he held about the source of true knowledge was.

Are you aware that outside the State of the Church, the Church had to rely on the temporal powers to persecute heretics?

Yes. Are you aware that Kepler worked under Rudolf II who was notoriously counter reformation Catholic? Who had to sede control of around half the realm to his brother in order to stop the Hungarian revolts he brought about from persecuting the heretics?

If the Chruch had a problem with Kepler, Rudolf II would have gladly signed his death warrant.

Rudolf II was deposed in 1612.
Copernicus's theory was condemned later.

Kepler dies in 1630.
Galileo's trial came later.

By the way, Kepler was a Protestant.

If Galileo had stayed in Padua, do you think he would have been subjected to the Trial?

That depends on wether or not he had an extremely powerful protector within the Venetian Republic. Despite the patronage of the de Medici Galileo was offered the choice of going to Rome of his own free will or in chains. The Venetians did defy the pope, but rarely for one man.

I'd bet on yes anyways.

You bet?

Observations and experiments overrule literal interpretation of the Holy Scripture in matters of physics.

In other words he agrees with Cardinal Bellarmine.

From this letter:

To say that on the supposition of the Earth’s movement and the Sun’s quiescence all the celestial appearances are explained better than by the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run no risk whatever. Such a manner of speaking is enough for a mathematician. But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the center of the universe and only rotates on its axis without going from east to west, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures.

[...]

As you are aware, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common opinion of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the center of the universe, and motionless.

[...]

Then comes the passage you quoted: 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 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.

(bolding mine)

Of course it is easy for Bellarmine to weasel out of the last statement and claim that there is no real proof.

The Church was more than happy to interpret the Bible, however it used this authority in interpreting the Holy Scripture to condemn the Copernican theory.

The inquisition kept an escape clause open. While the Church fathers interpreted the scripture to mean that solar system was Ptolomean, when Brahe came up with a superior system that was adopted. Only the Pope is incapable of error in Catholic theology and only then when he speaks under certain circumstances - and even that is a modern invention. At the time is was beleived that the church fathers could interpret the bible wrong, and that is what was eventually concluded.

And why was heliocentrism condemned because it is "contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture"?

Galileo recanted: this was more valuable than killing him.

No it wasn't. Within a short while the "it still moves" propoganda was spreading like wildfire. Further what is the value of one Copernican's recantation when others like Kepler and Torichelli were still out there?

Get your facts straight: Kepler was already dead.
And what did Torricelli do after Galileo's trial?
Nothing that could arouse suspicions of heresy.

And show me that the non-blacklisted authors published books where they promoted heliocentrism as a fact, and not just a theory.

Do you understand how the publishing business went back then? First you floated your idea to the censors, they checked it against Church strictures. Then you got permission, wrote the manuscript, handed it back over the censors, they made any changes if needed, and then the book was published. A few individuals managed to get around this, but by and large if you wished to publish you had to toe the line. This is the 17th century here, pushing the envelope other something as trivial as wether you were argueing in fact or in hypothetical terms was not done - if you rocked the boat you could lose your entire lively hood which depended entirely upon patronage.

Obviously you missed Osiander's disclaimer on Copernicus's book: "this is just a theory, not a fact."
Which is why the book was allowed to be published.
And in case you did not read all the quotes I provided from the records of Galileo's trial: heliocentrism was allowed to be discussed suppositionally.

Numerous other scientists were Copernican and held it to be fact, notably Torichelli, however they did not have Galileo's problems.

Of course, after Galileo's trial they did not go around shouting "heliocentrism is true as a fact!".
They did not want to end up like Bruno or Galileo, and kept quiet.

Further Galileo himself maintained that the Dialogue was a hypothetical treatment of Copernicanism.

You pointed out that Galileo payed lip-service to this idea by putting the Pope's doctrine into Simplicio's mouth.
Anyway, it is obvious that Galileo tried to avoid getting his books banned.
Remember the quotes I provided from Galileo's deposition?

By the way, Brahe did not measure any parallax of the star, because they are too far away. He did not reach the accuracy necessary to measure the parallax.
Now, can you explain exactly why you think that Galileo was wrong about the heliocentric and geocentric model being distinguishable from astronomical observations?

I know that, Brahe knew that. He actually told Kepler that either the stars was so ludicrously distant that parrallax couldn't be measured or that heliocentrism was wrong.

So, why did you say:

He was in error. Parrallax was a difference between Tychonian and Copernican models. It is the major reason why Brahe and most of the literate members of society subscribed adopted that astronomical model.

If there were two interpretations for the absence of parallax in Brahe's measurements, why did you say that Galileo was wrong in supporting heliocentrism?

At that point in time the principle of parsimony was on the latter. They didn't even have named numbers (i.e. billion, trillion, etc.) describing the size of distance required to ignore parrallax.

Archimedes had them, in The Sandreckoner.
Archimedes's works had already been discovered by Galileo's time.

Given a complete lack of understanding about gravity and cosmic distances, why wouldn't you assume that the sun revolves around the earth and all the other planets revolve around the sun?

Complete lack of understanding of gravity?
Galileo discovered that bodies fall to Earth following parabolic curves.
Kepler tried a dynamical approach to describe the orbits.
A purely kinematic approach cannot distinguish between heliocentric and geocentric model (remeber the principle of relativity?).
Of course, it took Newton to connect the fall of bodies and planetary orbits.

However, your assertion that they did not understand gravity clearly shows you ignorance in the matter.

Where are your sources?

Well for one I go with Cardinal Bellarmine who holds the very same doctrine as Galileo, you know the one which challenges church authority

Are you referring to the letter you selectively quoted?
The letter where he says that contradicting the Scriptures is a very dangerous attitude?
Clearly you must have reading comprehension problems or a very selective memory.

For another I quote Augustine:
"One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."

For another let us turn to Galileo:
"Many years ago, at the beginning of the uproar against Copernicus, I wrote a very long essay showing, largely by means of the authority of the Fathers, how great an abuse it is to want to use Holy Scripture so much when dealing with questions about natural phenomena, and how it would be most advisable to prohibit the involvement of Scripture in such disputes; when I am less troubled, I shall send you a copy."

In short Galileo was not challenging the authority of the Chruch and hence his forced recanting in 1633 occurred because of something published in that, not a an opinion he had held and expounded upon to numerous individuals (his letters to Archduke Leopold and Diodata survive to this day). The only thing that changes from his earlier opinions when he first goes before the inquisition and later is that he has managed to anger the pope and alienate his supporters.

What part of

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture:...

do you not understand?

Exactly what is Tharkun arguing again, apart from trying to make himself look like a sophistic jackass?

"The Church went after Galileo because he supported the position that theology and philosophy do not overrule observations and experiments when it comes to understanding the natural world."

The Church went after Galileo for pissing off the man in the big hat.

And how did he piss him off?
But supporting the position "that theology and philosophy do not overrule observations and experiments when it comes to understanding the natural world".

Galileo's opinions about interpreting scripture in light of observation are well known. Further his opinion is directly shared by the cardinal who first investigated him before the Inquisition - if evidence arises which contradicts the interpretation of scripture, then the interpretation must be wrong.

You mean the guy that never acknowledged the existence of evidence contradicting the Scriptures?

Galileo was tried on a charge of convenience for pissing off the Pope, not because he was a challenge to church authority.

So, why was the Copernican theory condemned more than 15 years earlier?

Was Galileo forced to recant by the church because of his ideas? Yes. Does this represent a clear-cut example of the church persecuting people for the "crime" of not saying what the Church commands them to say? Yes. Does it represent a clear-cut case of the church asserting dictatorial control over science? Yes.

Why did they do it? Because he was a rabble rousing demagogue that was threatening the Chruch? No those types lived far shorter and more painful lives, they did it because he pissed off the man with big hat.

By supporting a condemned theory.

WHAT happened is fairly obvious - the Catholic church were bunch of assholes who stuck their heads into a scientific debate and forced a man to recant on trumped up charges with fabricated evidence.

What fabricated evidence? Galileo did support heliocentrism as a fact.

WHY it happened is where the question between IS and myself arises. He thinks that Galileo was brought to trial for holding a doctrine that Augustine held, I think Galileo was brought to trial because he wase abrasive and pissed off a man you decidedly didn't want to be pissed off at you.

But I brought up references and quotes that are relevant to the discussion and support my position.
The only thing you provided is one quote taken out of context (and without the appropriate reference).
You have proved nothing except your ignorance.

You are wrong: get over it.

[tharkûn]

The fact that Galileo was put on trial, and then recanted, escaped you completely.
Why would they have put him to death?

As an example to other would be heretics. The doctrine they were trying to supress wasn't Galileanism, but Copernicanism. His recantantion serves no purpose, indeed the wording of it has loads of weasel room as Torichelli noted.

Rudolf II was deposed in 1612.
Copernicus's theory was condemned later.

Oh let's see who would it be then? Why Ferdinand II, you know the Hapsburg who began the 30 years war in defense of the faith

In any event Bruno was burned 1600 and the Church showed its position on heliocentrism at his trial.

Kepler was a protestant under a highly Catholic regime, one which had no problem executing protestant, even those who weren't heliocentrists. If the Chruch wanted Kepler dead, he'd have died. You can try to weasel all you like, the fact is Galileo gets off far to leniently for a church to papal authority and is actually tried unlike your average Copernican.

You pointed out that Galileo payed lip-service to this idea by putting the Pope's doctrine into Simplicio's mouth.
Anyway, it is obvious that Galileo tried to avoid getting his books banned.

In other words Galileo, de jure, did not challenge Church authority, concession accepted.

The letter where he says that contradicting the Scriptures is a very dangerous attitude?
Clearly you must have reading comprehension problems or a very selective memory.

It is the same position as Galileo's - that in event of conflict the interpretation of scripture is subordinate to overservation. Galileo's position is no different than that of Augustine.

You mean the guy that never acknowledged the existence of evidence contradicting the Scriptures?

The part where anywhere in that charge Galileo is called a threat to Chruch authority. That anywhere his dictum that observation requires reinterpretation is challenged.


There wasn't any at the time. The Tychonian model predicted all the fun things Galileo cites as a defense of heliocentrism and the Tychonian model fit with scripture. Galileo could do a passable job of attacking the Ptolomy's model, he can't hold a candle to Tycho's. What evidence, in 1616, was observed in contradiction to the scripture?

What part of <snip> do you not understand?

The part where anywhere in that charge Galileo's position about reinterpreting scripture in light of observation is challenged. His heliocentrism is condemned, not his larger world view.

So, why was the Copernican theory condemned more than 15 years earlier?

The Catholic Church was under protestant attack for holding false doctrines contrary to scriptures. The Church under took extreme measures to ensure that all doctrines and beleifs held by Catholics were correct.

What fabricated evidence? Galileo did support heliocentrism as a fact.

The Inquisition produced a document forbidding Galileo to hold, defend, or teach heliocentrism. It was missing the signature require by Inquisitorial rules and was contradicted by a signed and notarized document. The Inquisition was not even playing by its own rules.

Galileo himself stated on multiple occassions that he taught heliocentrism as a hypothesis.

You are wrong: get over it.

Right Galileo was persecuted for holding the same opinion as St. Augustine

Galileo who held and wrote about this position for decades prior was suddenly a threat to Chruch authority, but not enough to punish with anythin harsher than recantation and luxurious house arrest

Because Galileo vocally espoused his opinion the Inquisition felt the need to fabricate evidence for the hell of it, fabircated evidence which mentions nothing about the opinion you claim he was being targeted for

Heliocentrism was a charge of convenience. Galileo's position on the need to reinterpret scripture in light of new evidence is far from unique and held by the Inquisition itself - if as nothing more than an escape clause.

Get over it.

[Gil Hamilton]

While I'm partially on the fence about why exactly Galileo was persecuted, holding Johannes Kepler as an example of a person who was an admitted heretic but wasn't touched by the Church isn't very good. Kepler may have been a heretic, but he was a very well connected heretic. After all, by the time he worked himself into a heliocentric model, he was already Tycho's assistant and future successor as Imperial Mathematician to the Hapsburgs. Not only that, but he was a very big wig astrologer (which is one of the major things mathematicians did back then) who was fortunate enough to have some of his more famous predictions actually come true (like the Turkish invasion of Austria). Being Rudolf II's main man when it comes to the future and natal charts gave him alot of protection if anyone in the Church wanted him burned at the stake for heresy.

Kepler is not exactly a good example of the Church being tolerant of heresy.

[tharkûn]

Galileo had protectors as well, notably the friggen Pope himself. The problem Galileo had was that he was extremely abrasive and alienated those who might have protected him.

[Battlehymn Republic]

My original question in this thread, after reading the novel 1633: the Galileo Affair, is this: While the RCC was truly wrong in treating the way Galileo the way it did, was the whole imbroglio truly an example of science vs. religion? Again, did or did not the RCC itself have scientists of their own, some of which who believed the Aristotlian view?

The whole matter seems to be an issue of the RCC being a controlling force in the time, and Galileo being hot-headed. It doesn't seem to be a case of the Church punishing people just because of science, per se.

Am I saying that there weren't cases like that? No. However, maybe there's just a popular misconception that Galileo was one of those brave scientists burnt at the stake of Papal medieval backwardedness.

[Battlehymn Republic]

In my previous post I meant believed in the Copernican view, sorry.

[Il Saggiatore]

My original question in this thread, after reading the novel 1633: the Galileo Affair, is this: While the RCC was truly wrong in treating the way Galileo the way it did, was the whole imbroglio truly an example of science vs. religion? Again, did or did not the RCC itself have scientists of their own, some of which who believed the Aristotlian view?

Galileo supported the position that Man can reach true knowledge by studying Nature: observations and experiments overrule theology and philosophy.
This is clearly against any authority which uses sacred scriptures are the ultimate source of true knowledge.

The whole matter seems to be an issue of the RCC being a controlling force in the time, and Galileo being hot-headed. It doesn't seem to be a case of the Church punishing people just because of science, per se.

Galileo did have a temper, but the Church punished him because he effectively supported a condemned theory despite being warned against it.

Am I saying that there weren't cases like that? No. However, maybe there's just a popular misconception that Galileo was one of those brave scientists burnt at the stake of Papal medieval backwardedness.

Don't forget that Galileo thought he might get away with it and at tthe trial he recanted, so he had not been that brave.
That does not change the validity of his position about true knowledge.

[Il Saggiatore]

The fact that Galileo was put on trial, and then recanted, escaped you completely.
Why would they have put him to death?

As an example to other would be heretics.

What part of he recanted do you not understand?

The doctrine they were trying to supress wasn't Galileanism, but Copernicanism. His recantantion serves no purpose, indeed the wording of it has loads of weasel room as Torichelli noted.

Yet Torricelli himself (and Descartes) were very careful to avoid that hot potato.
So it worked.

Rudolf II was deposed in 1612.
Copernicus's theory was condemned later.

Oh let's see who would it be then? Why Ferdinand II, you know the Hapsburg who began the 30 years war in defense of the faith

In any event Bruno was burned 1600 and the Church showed its position on heliocentrism at his trial.

Copernicus's book was condemned in 1616, or maybe it was not clear from the quotes I posted?

Kepler was a protestant under a highly Catholic regime, one which had no problem executing protestant, even those who weren't heliocentrists. If the Chruch wanted Kepler dead, he'd have died. You can try to weasel all you like, the fact is Galileo gets off far to leniently for a church to papal authority and is actually tried unlike your average Copernican.

See Gil Hamilton's post.

You pointed out that Galileo payed lip-service to this idea by putting the Pope's doctrine into Simplicio's mouth.
Anyway, it is obvious that Galileo tried to avoid getting his books banned.

In other words Galileo, de jure, did not challenge Church authority, concession accepted.

And as you pointed out, Galileo's trick did not work, because de facto he ridiculed that doctrine.
He was not very subtle by putting it into the eternal loser Simplicio's mouth.
Galileo tried to get away with it and failed.

The letter where he says that contradicting the Scriptures is a very dangerous attitude?
Clearly you must have reading comprehension problems or a very selective memory.

It is the same position as Galileo's - that in event of conflict the interpretation of scripture is subordinate to overservation. Galileo's position is no different than that of Augustine.

You must have reading comprehension problems:
Bellarmine letter, from which you quoted, clearly states

But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the center of the universe and only rotates on its axis without going from east to west, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures.

This is exactly the opposite of Galileo's position.

You mean the guy that never acknowledged the existence of evidence contradicting the Scriptures?

The part where anywhere in that charge Galileo is called a threat to Chruch authority. That anywhere his dictum that observation requires reinterpretation is challenged.

Galileo himself was not a real threat, but his position was.

There wasn't any at the time. The Tychonian model predicted all the fun things Galileo cites as a defense of heliocentrism and the Tychonian model fit with scripture. Galileo could do a passable job of attacking the Ptolomy's model, he can't hold a candle to Tycho's. What evidence, in 1616, was observed in contradiction to the scripture?

They did not care about the observations.
That's why they condemned Copernicus's theory as contrary to the Holy Scriptures.
If the Church had condemned heliocentrism because it did not agree with observations, they would have admitted that observations overrule scriptures, which is exactly the opposite of what they wanted.

What part of <snip> do you not understand?

The part where anywhere in that charge Galileo's position about reinterpreting scripture in light of observation is challenged. His heliocentrism is condemned, not his larger world view.

Ah yes, it really must be your utter lack of reading comprehension:"divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture".
You claim that the observations supported geocentrism (Tycho's model), as opposed to heliocentrism (Coperincus's theory).
Yet the Church condemned heliocentrism because it was contrary to the Scriptures.
Let me spell it out for you: the Church did not accept that observations overrule the authority of the Scriptures.

So, why was the Copernican theory condemned more than 15 years earlier?

The Catholic Church was under protestant attack for holding false doctrines contrary to scriptures. The Church under took extreme measures to ensure that all doctrines and beleifs held by Catholics were correct.

So you concede now that heliocentrsim was condemned because contrary to the Scriptures, not because unsupported by observations.

What fabricated evidence? Galileo did support heliocentrism as a fact.

The Inquisition produced a document forbidding Galileo to hold, defend, or teach heliocentrism. It was missing the signature require by Inquisitorial rules and was contradicted by a signed and notarized document. The Inquisition was not even playing by its own rules.

So, care to back up any of your assertions?
Because, so far, you have not.

Did the Inquisition write Galileo's books?
No, and his books were all the evidence they needed.

Galileo himself stated on multiple occassions that he taught heliocentrism as a hypothesis.

I see that you are unfamiliar with his works, because in his dialogues he shreds to pieces geocentrism, even if heliocentrism is hold as an hypothesis for the sake of discussion.
Galileo had not been particularly subtle about it.

You are wrong: get over it.

Right Galileo was persecuted for holding the same opinion as St. Augustine

Nice strawman.
Care to back that up?
Because the Pope seemed to have a different opinion:

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture:...

(bolding mine)

Galileo who held and wrote about this position for decades prior was suddenly a threat to Chruch authority, but not enough to punish with anythin harsher than recantation and luxurious house arrest

I don't see anything that supports your position.
Galileo had been warned in 1616, and kept quiet for a while.
Then he thought that his connection would protect, but he was wrong.
And a seventy years old man was subjected to trial.

And guess what: the not-so-harsh recantation and house arrest were enough to scare other scientists.
Descartes did not publish his Il Monde because of that, and Torricelli avoided the issue of heliocentrsim.

Because Galileo vocally espoused his opinion the Inquisition felt the need to fabricate evidence for the hell of it, fabircated evidence which mentions nothing about the opinion you claim he was being targeted for

So it was not Galileo who wrote the Dialogues, but the Inquisition!
Fame and glory to you, if you can back up that claim.

Heliocentrism was a charge of convenience. Galileo's position on the need to reinterpret scripture in light of new evidence is far from unique and held by the Inquisition itself - if as nothing more than an escape clause.

So, why was heliocentrism condemned as contrary to the Holy Scriptures in 1616?
And Galileo's position being "far from unique" does not prove that it was not the reason for the trial.
Maybe it's because other people shared this position, that the Church felt it necessary to condemn it.
Would there have been a Reformation if nobody had listened to Martin Luther?