Shadow Wraith

Sorry about that. I have always read that his belief in the Copernican system and a multitude of other worlds is what got him executed. I looked up his bio ( <a href="http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/People/bruno.html" target="_blank">http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/People/bruno.html</A> and I see that the exact reasons were not known, though his beliefs made him rather unpopular with the church.

Bill

I would like to point out that the main reason for our ignorance on this point is that the Roman Catholic Church has not seen fit to release whatever records it retained in the matter. And, given the location of his trial and subsequent burning, at the very seat of authority of the Roman Catholic Church, there is every reason to believe that his records were retained, along with all the others that Rome has seen fit to release over the centuries.

The fact that the Pope made a specific apology for Bruno's burning is yet another fact that makes Bruno's case somewhat special.

And finally, let me remind you of another longstanding principle of our culture: he who destroys the records of a thing is to be held to the highest standards of guilt reasonably attributable to the records so destroyed. This is the principle being used against Arthur Anderson and Enron. That same principle should be equally applied to the Roman Catholic Church and its somewhat selective retention and/or release of records related to the Inquisition. I think that it is really important to note that the whole idea of what it means to be "a scientist in any sense that we would understand" is an entirely modern idea. What we call "scientific method" was largely developed after the Enlightenment, beginning in the late 18th century, but not really coming into its own until the 20th century.

Prior to the development of science as a separate occupation in its own right, "science" (as it existed back then) was really embodied in the study of the so-called "natural philosopher" ("physikos" in Greek; "physicus" in Latin). Bruno, as a true Renaissance man, was involved with the recapture of the spirit of Natural Philosophy, which is part of our cultural inheritance from the Greeks by way of the Romans. And in that sense at least, Bruno was as much of a scientist as were any of his more famous Greek predecessors.

My point here, Bede, is that your comment is not apt because it is an anachronism. Our modern idea of the "scientist" simply had not been invented! Oh, this is a really self-serving comment by you, Bede!

Bruno was executed in a most horrible manner by religious authorities who objected to his ideas, as expressed by his books and lectures. Bruno was executed to keep him from creating and/or spreading any similar ideas. All of science is a branch of philosophy (which is why all Doctors of Science receive PhD degrees). Bruno was, as I said above, a natural philosopher, and as such, he contributed to the philosophy of science as much as (if not more than) any modern researcher today. His story is important, along with those of Copernicus and Galileo, in order to illustrate why it was necessary for the founders of the United States to proclaim freedom of speech and freedom of religion as guaranteed rights of all humans. There are, unfortunately, an awful lot of folks here in the United States who would just as soon go back to an Inquisition-type process of filtering out bad ideas. It is important that those people learn what the consequences of such beliefs are: the execution of people simply because they disagree with those who are in power. Once power gets down to that level, no person can possibly be free any any real sense.

=====

On another front, the apologists for the Inquisition (including you, it would seem) are always claiming that the large number of deaths by burning at the stake, etc. were largely attributable to "rogue bishops" out in the provinances (i.e., France, etc.) who were acting outside of the guidelines established by Rome. One thing that is perfectly clear in the case of Bruno is that this argument cannot be made. This is another reason for continuing to raise Bruno up as an example of the Roman Catholic Church run amok.

This whole idea of blaming "rogues" out in the "provinances" could just as easily be ripped from the headlines of the past few weeks, as Rome has sought to distance itself from responsibility for the pedophile priests it has been coddling for many decades (just how long is a matter of some debate; but it is certainly long enough to be already a matter of considerable legend).

Many centuries ago, the Roman Catholic Church organized itself so as to protect itself from individual civil authorities by placing the direct ownership of all church property in the name of the local bishop or archbishop. Nothing is held in the name of the church in Rome beyond the Pope's own holdings (including the Vatican and the Pope's castle in the rural hills of Italy for his "summer vacations"). But when you have the same sorts of scandals breaking out all over the world, it doesn't take a genius to recognize that there is a pattern of central control at work here.

And for all that the modern apologists for the Inquisition try to claim that Rome bears no responsibility for the many thousands of burnings at the stake, I am no more predisposed to believe those denials than I am predisposed to believe that the Vatican really knew nothing about all of those pedophile priests for the past however many decades.

== Bill

Bede

Bill,

There are a number of errors of fact in your post that I think need to be addressed.

- The archives of the Roman Inquisition were damaged when they were looted by Napoleon's troops who wanted everything in Paris. Much was lost during the chaos of the Napoleonic wars and a good deal ended up in Dublin of all places. Bruno's indicment would have been a public document but until the mid nineteenth century no one cared enough about him to look it up by which time it was lost. Your insinuations of deliberate censorship and suppression, without a thread of evidence, are unworthy. Needless to say all the Vatican's records on the period are open to scholars.

- While you are absolutely right to warn us of reading too much into early science as being equivalent to the the modern manifestation (witness efforts by atheists to claim science existed amoung the Greeks or Arabs), there was a tradition that lead to modern science in existence at the time of Bruno's execution typified by his great contempories of, for example, Galileo, Keplar and Harvey. This can be traced back to the twelth century and the original debate on secondary causes won by William of Conches, Abelard, Adelard and others. But Bruno is empathicly not part of this tradition as he instead represents the resurgence of neo Platonism and mystical thought in the late Rennaisance. Dee and others are also part of this. The Sojourner has made some insightful points about how Neo-Platonism is, by virtue of its idealism and mysticism, detrimental to the development of empircal science. Hence my point about Bruno not being revelvant to the rise of science stands. If you are actually interested in him, Yate's Guidorno Bruno and the Hermatic Tradition remains the standard work.

- The PhD degree is another nineteenth century invention, this time from Germany, and has nothing at all to do with the subject of natural philosophy. Before this time only the higher faculties of theology, medicene and law could award doctorates so the PhD was invented for everything else to level the playing field. I want a Phd in History to go with my BA in physics!

- Your points about inquisition apologists may well relate to something I haven't read but have no relation to anything I have written. My feelings on the subject are dejection and shame that the message of Gospel became so subdued in the institution that was supposed to live by it. Luckily, I'm not an American, so I can rest easy that judical murder is now outlawed by the laws of both my country and my church. I am also profoundly unhappy with the church's action vis a vis the abuse scandals and hope that it will come to terms with the mistakes made and put in palce the proceedures necessary to prevent any repeats.

- The apology re Bruno was because he was, for whaterever reason, famous but the church was apologising for all the excesses of the inquisition which, incidently, it does accept responcibility for.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://http//www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Vorkosigan

But Bruno is empathicly not part of this tradition as he instead represents the resurgence of neo Platonism and mystical thought in the late Rennaisance. Dee and others are also part of this. The Sojourner has made some insightful points about how Neo-Platonism is, by virtue of its idealism and mysticism, detrimental to the development of empircal science. Hence my point about Bruno not being revelvant to the rise of science stands. If you are actually interested in him, Yate's Guidorno Bruno and the Hermatic Tradition remains the standard work.

Inasmuch as Yates has built a long and distinguished career tracing the connections between alchemy, mysticism and early scientific thinking.....I find this comment somewhat strange.

Bruno was chased by the Inquisition for several decades, fleeing first in 1576, later caught in 1592 and burnt 8 years later. Apparently they were really pissed off at him.

All the issues you've raised, Bede, are non-issues. Bruno was burnt because he chose to think differently than the Church. It's really a red herring whether he was a "scientist" or not; he was an independent thinker and that was enough for the Church. He is certainly not one of the pantheon of great scientists, but it isn't like you can burn people just because they aren't great. Further, he did make one major contribution in that he was a firm advocate of Copernicus in a period when the theory had few. He may have supported Copernicus for reasons that are essentially wrong, but he certainly did not deserve to get burned for any reason.

He had one of those imperious, abrasive personalities, and was kicked out of a number of places. Yet he was sufficiently brilliant that he kept acquiring new positions and places. The world was not made richer by his burning.

Neither Kepler nor Galileo seems to have thought very kindly of Bruno; his exposition of Copernican theory was wrong on several points. Galileo did not mention him at all, although he was a major proponent of Copernican theory in the pre-1600 period. Although the considered opinion of scholars is that his advocacy of Copernican system had little to do with his being burnt, it is interesting to note that his interrogator was Robert Bellarmine, the same vermin who would in 1616 inform Galileo that he'd best keep his mouth shut, and whose notes would form the basis for Galileo's brush with the Church in 1633. Since Copernicus was not considered heretical until 1616, it seems unlikely the Bruno was burnt for that. He seems to have been burnt for being a pantheist, and basically for being an ogre, since he had long since offended all his powerful patrons.

Did I mention that Bellarmine, who made a career out of attacking science on behalf of the Church, was canonized in 1930?

Also, your egregious slap at Americans "judicial murder" is a trollish piece of shit that is a simple-minded attempt to shuffle attention away from the point of this thread, which is the relationship between Christianity and science. Capital punishment in the United States for widely recognized crimes has nothing to do with burning men and women while they were still alive for the horrible crime of having a different opinion than the Catholic Church. Several us have long since come to the conclusion that your front of academic reasonableness is a pose, and comments like that do nothing to change that opinion.

Vorkosigan

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Bede

V,

I can't understand why you seem determined to have a fight. We basically agree about Bruno's relevance and also agree that his burning was wrong. Yet for some reason instead of presenting your interesting extra facts in a spirit of discussion you rant, rave and insult me. What is your problem? If my comment on judical murder (and it happening today is rather more important than it happening 400 years ago) is off topic what about Bill's blatant and irrelevant load of Catholic bashing? Double standards or what...?

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Vorkosigan

[b]V,

I can't understand why you seem determined to have a fight. We basically agree about Bruno's relevance and also agree that his burning was wrong.

Yet for some reason instead of presenting your interesting extra facts in a spirit of discussion you rant, rave and insult me. What is your problem? If my comment on judical murder (and it happening today is rather more important than it happening 400 years ago) is off topic what about Bill's blatant and irrelevant load of Catholic bashing? Double standards or what...?

Yours

Bede

What double standards? Bill's post, as far as I can see, is on topic. Bill traced a connection between the Church's authoritarianism and its protection of its own, and its persecution of those who disagree with it. This put the burning of Bruno in its proper historical context -- the authoritarianism of the Church -- while relating it to present day affairs in a relevant way. It's not our problem that you believe a corrupt, authoritarian and amoral organization is the representative of god. Your comment about "judicial murder" is simply an off-topic attempt to inflame the discussion.

Oh, and BTW, executions were legal in Britain until 1998 --check the legislation regarding the Armed forces. The distance between us is less than you think.

Additionally, the Church has not outlawed capital punishment. <a href="http://www.pacatholic.org/public%20policy/death%20penalty.htm" target="_blank">Canon law and Church teaching clearly allow it</a>:

• The traditional teaching of the Catholic Church acknowledges that: "Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2266). Furthermore, assuming that the identity, responsibility and guilt of the perpetrator have been fully established, "this traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor." While acknowledging the right of the state to inflict capital punishment, the Church qualifies the use of this right by teaching: "If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267).

So not only is your statement inflammatory, it is also wrong.

Vorkosigan

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Vorkosigan

This can be traced back to the twelth century and the original debate on secondary causes won by William of Conches, Abelard, Adelard and others. But Bruno is empathicly not part of this tradition as he instead represents the resurgence of neo Platonism and mystical thought in the late Rennaisance. Dee and others are also part of this. The Sojourner has made some insightful points about how Neo-Platonism is, by virtue of its idealism and mysticism, detrimental to the development of empircal science.

I think it is easy to overstate the importance of this point. The Confucians were into reason, as were several other Chinese groups, but science did not develop in China. Confucianism was interested in the human and less interested in the world. It was the booming interest the world of late Medieval and early Renaissance that made a useful tool of reason.

Vorkosigan

Bede

V (I've figured out who you are now, sorry to be slow on the uptake),

An excellent piece of selective quotation from the Catechism. We'll make an apologist of you yet. But here's the rest of 2267:

In other words, we don't try and project today's values on to history, but we do think the circumstances when capital punishment is necessary as being... well, you can read. This means capital punishment has been effectively outlawed by the church, as it has in Britain since 1963 even if some old laws took time to be repealed.

As for the your defence of Bill, it was also just double standards. No matter, I'm used it and your propencity to fly off the handle from time to time.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Vorkosigan

V (I've figured out who you are now, sorry to be slow on the uptake),

An excellent piece of selective quotation from the Catechism. We'll make an apologist of you yet. But here's the rest of 2267:




In other words, we don't try and project today's values on to history, but we do think the circumstances when capital punishment is necessary as being... well, you can read. This means capital punishment has been effectively outlawed by the church, as it has in Britain since 1963 even if some old laws took time to be repealed.

As for the your defence of Bill, it was also just double standards. No matter, I'm used it and your propencity to fly off the handle from time to time.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>[/QB][/QUOTE]

Vorkosigan

V (I've figured out who you are now, sorry to be slow on the uptake),

An excellent piece of selective quotation from the Catechism. We'll make an apologist of you yet. But here's the rest of 2267:

The quote wasn't mine, but a Catholic Bishop's. He made the point clearly: the Church has not outlawed capital punishment, whatever weaseling they do on the topic. After all, they might still acquire temporal power again some day....

As for the your defence of Bill, it was also just double standards.

Whatever

No matter, I'm used it
and your propencity to fly off the handle from time to time.

My propensity to fly off the handle? I see. And a trollish comment like "judicial murder" was not "flying off the handle?"

Vorkosigan