mark9950

According from this article it appears that the copernican system got galileo in trouble with the catholic church.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo...rrative_7.html

I would assume that the catholic church believed that the earth was the center of the universe not the sun.

Does that mean that all religions at that time believed the bible referring to joshua sun stand still episode which is in your bible.

Metacrock

acutally the truth of the matter is a lot more convoluted. He didnt get in trouble for saying the sun was at the center. He got in trouble or disagreeing with Arostotle. It comes to the same thing, but the point is they weren't defending the Bible, they were defending Arostotle becasue he had become so important to the chruch via Thomas Aqinas.

Marduk

What bothered them was that the Earth went AROUND the Sun. The idea was that good things like God were ABOVE the Earth, in the Heavens with God. The Earth was low, hell being under the Earth was even worse. It also bothered them that Galileo reported sunspots, meaning the sun in heaven was not perfect.

mark9950

without trying to, the catholic church,the bible and aristotle.

It sure looks like that to me.

He may have not intentionally try to discredit anyone,but as of today we know for a fact that the earth revolves around the sun as galileo theorized and that the sun cannot stop revolving around the earth because it does not like joshua sun stand still incident.

Does galileos proven theories about the earth revolving around the sun discredit the bible as the writings of a so called creator GOD,making it look like the word of mans perception of things.

It looks like that to me.

Secular Pinoy

I was wondering if these two quotes are true, regarding the trial of Galileo:

• The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith. - Catholic Church's decision against Galileo
• To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo

Any takers?

Sojourner553

Doesn't Aristotle come in -- only because the Church used Aristotle as proof to confirm what was already in the Scriptures, and how they interpreted them?

We can look at the formal accusation made against to Galileo at his trial as proof:



At his Inquisition trial, Galileo was placed under house arrest and ordered
to recant his heretical views. The accusation against him read:

"Whereas you, Galileo...aged seventy years, were denounced in 1615, to this
Holy Office, for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many, namely, that
the sun is immovable in the center of the world, and that the earth moves, and
also with a diurnal motion; also, for having pupils whom you instructed in the
same opinions; also, for maintaining a correspondence on the same with some
German mathematicians; also, for publishing certain letters on the sun-spots,
in which you developed the same doctrine as true; also, for answering the
objections which were continually produced from the Holy Scriptures, by
quoting the said Scriptures according to your own meaning; and whereas hereupon
was produced the copy of a writing, in form of a letter professedly written to
you to a person formerly your pupil, in which, following the hypothesis of
Copernicus, you include several propositions contrary to the true sense and
authority of the Holy Scriptures; therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous
of providing against the disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and
increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire of his Holiness and
the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition,
the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth,
were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:


1. The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and immovable
from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because
it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.

2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor
immovable, but that it moves, and also with a durnal action, is also absurd,
philosophically false, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in
faith.


Therefore..., invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and His
Most Glorious Mother Mary, We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce,
judge, and declare, that you 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 it not the center of the world; also
that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after is has been
declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture, and consequently,
that you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated
in the sacred canons and other general and particular constituents against
delinquents of this description. From which it is Our pleasure that you be
absolved, provided that with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in Our
presence, you abjure, curse, and detest, the said error and heresies, and
every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church of
Rome."

RED DAVE

Any comments on Giorgio De Santillana's book on Galileo's trial? He claims that the Pope was moderately pro-Galileo and was snookered by reactionary elements in the Papal bureacracy.

Specifically, the question was about whether or not statements in the Bible could or should be taken literally or metaphorically and allegorically.

RED DAVE

Bede

Actually, Cardinal Bellarmine's position was rather more subtle. As he said: “If there were a real proof that [heliocentrism was true] 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”. (quoted p99, The Crime of Galileo, Giorgio de Santillana).

This shows that Bellarmine, and by extension because he was the so influential, the church, did not consider that scripture could trump science. Instead, if the science was proved, scripture had to be interpreted to conform with this. Sadly, Galileo failed to prove his point and so initially lost the argument. A more patient man, happy to wait for definitive evidence and humble enough to admit he might occasionally be wrong, would not have caused so much outrage to the Aristotelians. Galileo was proven partly right and so is a hero and martyr. Bellarmine had the misfortune to die before proof was available and so is unfairly castigated for what seems to be an entirely reasonable position. As for the language of the condemnation, it tells us nothing about what brought about the crisis or the arguments that led up to it. It does stand as a monument to a very unfortunate clash of personalities that had little or nothing to do with religion.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Hugo Holbling

As Bede says, the Galileo episode was alot more subtle than most people assume. In this thread i discussed briefly Bellarmino's position, showing that he was reasonable in his approach. I could go into more detail but the gist of it is that we shouldn't judge the actions of the church retrospectively: at the time Galileo's account was decidedly inferior to the Aristotlean dynamics and pre-Copernican model he hoped to displace and Bellarmino was not about to give up the orthodoxy until the case was considerably better made.

Sojourner553

Cardinal Bellarmine was a liberal and I would argue not representative of the majority of religious scholars/leaders of this time period. As a liberal he believed that the Bible was not necessarily literally true.--That instead, God had written it down in a form whereby it could be understood by "less advanced" people than those in the sixteenth century. That is why he makes the open-minded statements you quote.


It would be more representative to say there was an outcry by conservatives (which included Protestants AND Catholics by the way!) that Galileo should be handed over to the Inquisition. THEIR reasoning was that his new theory upset the "whole plan of Christian salvation."

The formal accusation read against Galileo also shows the real reason

1. The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and immovable
from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because
it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.

2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a durnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.


===============

Now, I think a point on your side is that Galileo was very brash (at a minimum) in publishing his DIALOGO in 1632. This was very offensive to Urban VIII because it presented his views through the character of a simpleton.

What this means is that the pope likely despised Galileo for personal reasons after this, regardless of any disagreements on "theory" -- and therefore more willing to give him the MAXIMUM punishment.

Agreed, this was pretty stupid of Galileo.

But the final analysis of Galileo is still this: the climate of the time made it very difficult for intellectuals to freely describe new ideas that clashed with official Church dogma. Galileo was not the only one impacted by this.

I was taught (originally by my religious mother) that all authority becomes corrupt over time if there is no freedom to reform/replace it. It doesn't really matter which group (religious or non-religious) is in power.... ie the Catholics just "happened" to be the ones with the absolute power back then.

That is why Galileo remains a story about intellectual freedom