For JSR...
...Several points for your consideration...from a Catholic Online source...
There is much confusion regarding Galileo's story. The astronomer is most famous for presenting as fact Nicholas Copernicus' theory that the earth, and other heavenly bodies, revolve around the sun. The belief at the time, based on Scripture, was that all heavenly bodies revolved around the earth, and the earth was the center of the universe.
Some of the popular myths about Galileo are: he was ordered by the Church to give up his scientific study, he was guilty of heresy, he was tortured and imprisoned, and he knew that the Copernican theory was correct and that the church was wrong.
The textbooks we analyzed do nothing to dispel these myths. Prentice Hall's Discovering Our Past: Medieval and Early Modern Times has this to say about Galileo and his teaching that all heavenly objects did not revolve around earth: "Church officials warned Galileo to give up his study of the heavens" (p. 572).
The Church did not, in fact, warn Galileo to give up his studies. Pope Urban VIII actually encouraged Galileo to continue his studies, but to present the Copernican theory of the universe as a theory, not as a fact.
McDougal Littell's World History: Medieval and Early Modern Times has this to say on the subject: "But Galileo knew he was right, and so did other scientists" (p. 504).
Galileo may have thought he was right, but there was in fact no scientific way at the time to prove his conclusion on the Copernican theory.
Prentice Hall's book also says: "Under torture, the 70-year-old scientist denied his belief in a sun-centered universe. Galileo is said to have left his trial muttering, 'And yet, it moves'" (p. 573).
Galileo was never tortured, and the quote attributed to him was actually made up by a writer 125 year after the trial.
Books published by Prentice Hall, Glencoe McGraw Hill, and Teachers' Curriculum Institute write that Galileo was tried for heresy. The following passage is from Teachers' Curriculum Institute's History Alive!: The Medieval World and Beyond: "At Galileo's trial, church leaders accused him of heresy" (p. 393).
Galileo was not convicted of heresy. The astronomer was condemned for defying a papal council's 1616 edict that it may be heresy (although the 1616 council did not actually use the word "heresy") to teach that the sun was the center of the universe.
Although not contained in the texts we analyzed, another popular myth regarding Galileo is that the Church admitted only in the 1990's that Galileo was right. The Church gave Galileo's printed works its imprimatur within 100 years of the astronomer's death, well before science was capable of proving the Copernican theory. It was not until 150 years later that science was able to provide such proof.
I'm off to dinner...I will convince you of no moderate ground...
Replies to: For JSR...
So what?
What the hell are you even talking about, Goat?
You stated that the scientific community was harder on Galileo than the Church. I pointed out that the Church tried, convicted, and punished Galileo. You responded by claiming that the scientific community tried to have him killed. I challenged that, and you still haven't ponied up. All you did was prattle on about how comfortable Galileo's life sentence of home confinement was.
Now you are crowing about the alleged fact that the Church didn't actually convict him of heresy? Galileo was not convicted of heresy. The astronomer was condemned for defying a papal council's 1616 edict that it may be heresy (although the 1616 council did not actually use the word "heresy") to teach that the sun was the center of the universe. Uh, what do you think the word heresy means? Let me help you out with a definition and a link to a definition. Heresy:An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member. According to you, the Church "condemned" Galileo for "defying a papal council's edict" by teaching that the sun was the center of the universe. Then they sentenced him to life in home confinement. But that isn't convicting him for heresy. AYFKM? I don't care whether they used the word heresy or not. Whatever technical distinction you draw regarding Galileo's trial and punishment, he was convicted for espousing beliefs contrary to the Church. The distinction you are attempting to draw is beyond disingenuous.
Link: http://www.answers.com/heresy
I think we can agree to disagree...
...I said many in Galileo's scientific community pushed for his demise...it was Kabuki theatre designed to shut him up...Thesis 3 in the article linked below supports the notion that his colleagues pushed the issue...which could have resulted in his death...some historians think the situation was dire, some say it was all political rhetoric...so it more a matter of opinion than hard fact...
Again, there is an important distinction to be made in Galileo's trial...he was told to stop teaching heliocentrism as FACT because he could not prove it...and he couldn't...so it was "suspected heresy"
until he could offer any kind of proof...did you expect the Church or anyone else, to overturn centuries of Aristotelean thinking without a shred of evidence?...And why was he offered every opportunity before and during his confinement to offer proof...which he knew he couldn't do?...he was never excommunicated and remained a loyal Catholic for the remainder of his life...
Some suggest that the Church was 100% wrong, that they are rigidly against scientific advancement, and that Galileo's trial irrefutably proves this for all cases moving forward...I think that is nonsense...the Sun is not the immovable center of the Universe...so Galileo was fulla crap to some degree...I have already admitted that Urban VIII had a huge ego...but Galileo did as well...Arthur
Koestler's book is a key source for a lot of people...it is referenced many times in the summary article linked below...
Urban VIII was no saint...neither was Galileo...any honest discussion would admit that...
Link: Schirrmacher on Galileo
I think the problem is that you aren't sticking to our issues.
I didn't weigh in on your larger discussion of Galileo. I weighed in only when you made the statement that the scientific community was more harsh with Galileo than the Church was. Knowing that the Church had tried, convicted, and punished Galileo, I didn't see how you could support that notion. You responded by claiming that the scientific community pushed for Galileo's death. I was unable to find documentation of that claim, and you have provided none. That was our discussion.
Rather than stick to the issue we were discussing, you went off on a number of tangents:
Galileo, though confined in his home until he died, had a luxury apartment. So what? What does that have to do with anything?
Galileo was never tortured by the Church. Who said the Church tortured him? I didn't.
Despite the fact that what the Church did to Galileo absolutely fits the definition of "trying and convicting him for heresy," there is a technical distinction in Galileo's case. Seriously? The Church tried him and convicted him and punished him for his beliefs and teachings, but you are drawing some "important" distinction based upon the particular wording of the Church's decree? Even if that made any difference in our discussion (which it doesn't), it's a cop out.
Again, you seem to be laboring under the mistaken understanding that I am arguing larger issues with you here. I'm not. You wrote: Some suggest that the Church was 100% wrong, that they are rigidly against scientific advancement, and that Galileo's trial irrefutably proves this for all cases moving forward...I think that is nonsense...the Sun is not the immovable center of the Universe...so Galileo was fulla crap to some degree...I have already admitted that Urban VIII had a huge ego...but Galileo did as well...Arthur Koestler's book is a key source for a lot of people...it is referenced many times in the summary article linked below....
I haven't argued any of this. I'm not arguing any of this. I simply challenged you on a very specific statement you made about the scientific community trying to kill Galileo. If you'd stop and think about it, you'd simply say: "I overreached on that one, I was wrong." Instead you've engaged in misdirection and, frankly, some misrepresentation. The argument you make about me not documenting that the scientific community didn't seek to kill Galileo is preposterous. You're asking me to prove a negative. Consider the example I included in the other thread. The Catholic Church sent soldiers into Ireland to kill all men named Seamus. You'd never find documentation stating that the Church didn't do that. But you'd easily disprove my claim by pointing out there is no documentation that it did happen.
In the post above, you claim merely that you "said many in Galileo's scientific community pushed for his demise..." That is a misrepresentation, unless you are using demise and death interchangeably. You specifically stated that the scientific community pushed for Galileo's death. That is how you justified the statement that the scientific community was more harsh with Galileo than the Church that tried, convicted, and punished him. I entered into the debate on that issue. I invited you to document your claim and educate me. You were, and are, unable to do so.
Look. In my experience you are a reasonable and thoughtful poster. I think if you could step away from being defensive about the debate, you'd admit that you are wrong about the issue we were discussing.
(Edited to be less confrontational, i.e., I counted to ten.)
Of course you do...BTW, I read the original post...it was unecessarily hostile...
Some reputable historians, like the ones in the summary article I provided (thesis 3), have suggested that Galileo's colleagues forced the moment to it's crisis because they feared a loss of position unless he was discredited..had he been convicted of actual heresy, he might well have been excommunicated and put to death...in that sense "pushed for his demise" has a literal application.
Some historians and dramatists have suggested that the situation was dire...others suggest that
Galileo was never in any real danger because no scientist was put to death for his scientific
beliefs...The relative mercy of the Church is a matter of historical opinion...
You have disagreed with my opinion and questioned my integrity...but have you made an irrefutable counter-case that the Church was truly harsher than Galileo's colleagues?...It's a matter of opinion...historians disagree...some without anger...
This is just sad.
Posted at 11:44 am on Mar 27, 2009
I guess some people simply can't admit they are wrong. Didn't have you pegged for that type, Goat. But the evidence of that is irrefutable.
Don't be sad or angry...
(no message)
And do you know what is funny about this?
Posted at 11:52 am on Mar 27, 2009
Your contorted explanation. Some reputable historians suggest that some in the scientific community "forced a moment to crisis" where Galileo might have been put to death . . . by the Church.
That's your justification for the idea that scientists were "harsher" on Galileo than the Church? That's your support for the statement that the scientific community "pushed for Galileo to be put to death." That's beyond laughable.
The Church tried, convicted, and punished him. You're so hung up on arguing in favor of the Church that you've tossed objectivity and integrity out the window. Sad and funny.
Tragic and disastrous...
...Many in the scientific community wanted Galileo tried and did not care about the consequences...The Church did...they continued to fund his work...a reasonable man might suggest that is less harsh..while admitting that BOTH Urban VIII and Galileo were being assholes...
Okay.
Didn't care about the consequences isn't really the same as pushing for someone to be put to death. Surely you understand this. Sadly, you'll likely pretend you don't.
One final note, Goat:
Posted at 11:58 am on Mar 27, 2009
My post in its original form was not "unnecessarily" hostile. But it was hostile. I went back and modified it as a show of respect. For whatever that's worth.
Logic, please?...
...if your post was not unneccessarily hostile...then it was necessarily hostile...if, it was necessarily hostile, why did you edit it?...And how do you respect someone who has no integrity and objectivity?...isn't that hypocritical?
Are you joking?
Posted at 12:31 pm on Mar 27, 2009
My original post was appropriately hostile, IMO. I edited it as a show of respect, because I've never had a problem with you on the board. I always considered you a good poster. So I self-edited. An olive branch, if you will. Where is the logic problem there?
Regarding respect: I explained why I respected you. Not sure I do any more. I'll consider the matter further. You have shown a lack of objectivity and integrity on in this particular debate. I like to think that isn't who you are. I like to think it is simply a matter of you being too tied up in the larger issue to admit your mistake.
Well don't compromise yer convictions on my behalf...
...if your original post was "appropriately hostile", why edit it?...out of respect for me?...yet yer not sure you respect someone who has a lack of integrity and objectivity?...When you stop arguing with yerself, lemme know...
There are over 8,000 books on this subject...and a lot of Galileo hagiography...I think an objective point of view suggests that it's a complicated subject, there are two sides to every story, that the Church, Galileo, his colleagues, and The Reformation context all require careful consideration before one claims that another's opinion and integrity are suspect...I tend to agree with Arthur Koestler...so shoot me!...
I won't.
Apparently the concept here is too difficult for you to grasp. I'll try anyway. My original post was appropriate, IMO, given the tenor and substance of the prior conversation. It wasn't that much different than the edited version. But I toned it down out of respect for you as a long-time poster with whom I've never had a problem. I wanted to believe that your clear lack of integrity in this debate is aberration. Obviously you are passionate about the issue. Given your further responses, I don't know if I will write it off as aberration. I'm not arguing with myself about anything. There is no logical flaw in my posts. So what are you talking about?
I agree that Galileo and his relationship to the Church is an extremely complicated matter. I don't necessarily disagree with you on the larger issues. My involvement in the debate came about because you made a point I doubted. I called you on it. You responded with a statement you have not supported. You specifically stated that Galileo's scientific contemporaries pushed for him to be put to death. When I read that, I didn't believe it. So I researched it and found absolutely no support for it. You provided no support.
If you were interested in open honest debate, you'd acknowledge that you overreached on that one. That'd be the end of the debate. We might then have a meaningful discussion about more significant matters pertaining to Galileo. But, sadly, you aren't interested. You'd rather cling to a statement you cannot support than admit you made an error. So be it.
Top of page...
(no message)
P.S.
I don't think your meaningless, disingenuous distinction holds up anyway. They didn't actually use the word heresy?
From the linked source:
This time, Galileo's technical argument didn't win the day. On June 22, 1633, the Church handed down the following order: "We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world."
Along with the order came the following penalty: "We order that by a public edict the book of Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited, and We condemn thee to the prison of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure; and as a salutary penance We enjoin on thee that for the space of three years thou shalt recite once a week the Seven Penitential Psalms."
Link: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=970