7 ms·

Bruno was an astronomer, but was burned for heresy, not astronomy. Burning at the stake was indefensible; but at least it wasn't about science. (Something compa

Bruno was an astronomer, but was burned for heresy, not astronomy. Burning at the stake was indefensible; but at least it wasn't about science. (Something comparable happened to Hypatia, who was cruelly killed by a Christian mob not for practicing and teaching classical science, but for being pagan.)

sqeaky 10y ago
It seems that your claim is that the astronomy had nothing to do with burning a man alive.... but there are many non-astronmer pagans not burned alive. Perhaps astronomy wasn't the only reason, but clearly the church was against any message, however scientific, that conflicted with their message. Scientists have this nasty habit of having evidence that complicates shutting them up while they live. EDIT - Grammar
- danielam 10y ago
  You offer a damning yet vague accusation (an easy one since slandering the Church is acceptable and even respectable today), but no argument. Since Bruno was mentioned, it must be noted that he didn't have any evidence for his claims, but what made him a heretic were claims that were radically anti-Christian, not idle speculation about the stars. (I should also mention that both Galileo and Kepler didn't exactly have the kindest words for Bruno.) Another good one: it is popular opinion that the Church viewed heliocentrism as a heretical position, sometimes followed by mentions of passages in the bible that talk about sunrises or sunsets or how it demotes Man's place in the cosmic order. Again, all that this demonstrates is ignorance -- ignorance of history, ignorance of the nature of science and the history of science and ignorance of the history of the bible and the nature of the texts within it. The "us vs. them" story of the enlightened forces of science battling the big, bad, evil Church is comical and stupid and the currency of people poorly educated on the subject. It's an easy narrative to hold to especially when it reaffirms what one wants to believe. It's all too common that people think it's okay to slander anyone you don't like or disagree with.
  - cutler 10y ago
    Where's your evidence that the Catholic church did not consider the heliocentric view heretical?
    - throwaway1892 10y ago
      Where's your evidence that the Catholic church did consider the heliocentric view heretical?
  - qb45 10y ago
    > Another good one: it is popular opinion that the Church viewed heliocentrism as a heretical position You bet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#1616_ban_against_Copernicanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#1616_ban_against... In February 1616, the Inquisition assembled a committee of theologians, known as qualifiers, who delivered their unanimous report condemning Heliocentrism as "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." This even landed Copernicus a spot on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (posthumously) even though he had been a Catholic cleric himself.
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      This even landed Copernicus a spot on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (posthumously) even though he had been a Catholic cleric himself. Another interesting bit of trivia: far from being a medieval artifact of ignorance and oppression, the Index existed until 1966. Galileo received an apology in 1992, and as far as I'm aware Giordano Bruno remains unpardoned. But by all means, let's go back to the business of rehabilitating Christianity on the grounds that Bruno was a heretic, Hypatia a pagan, and Galileo an annoying jerk who got what was coming to him.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        I take your point, but I think it's worth reflecting that the largest communities in the world where Christianity† needs to be "rehabilitated" are all Internet message boards. If you're working from the premise that Christianity is somehow working its way out from some kind of siege... well, not so much. Another thing worth remembering is the historical context we're talking about. The list of books banned by Catholicism had a far more important meaning when the Catholic church was a state (or an instrument of the state). It hasn't been that for a very long time. † (or, if you like, mainstream organized religions)
strictnein 10y ago
Not sure why you're being buried when you're correct. Too many people saw that Cosmos episode which was amazingly inaccurate. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/giordano-bruno-cosmos-heretic-scientist http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/giordano-bruno-cosmos-heret...
- michaelsbradley 10y ago
  See also atheist historian Tim O'Neill's blog posts: "Agora" and Hypatia - Hollywood Strikes Again http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/05/agora-and-hypatia-hollywood-strikes.html http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/05/agora-and-hypatia... Hypatia and "Agora" Redux http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/hypatia-and-agora-redux.html http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/hypatia-and-agora...
- cygx 10y ago
  That site lists the things Bruno was accused of, not the ones he got convicted for - a rather important difference, don't you think?
- throwaway7645 10y ago
  I was quite upset that they bended history so much for that episode. They even tried to present Lucretius's views on infinity as scientific. Correct, but not scientific but mystic. The big bang theory and a ton of other scientific discoveries have been made by catholic clergyman and laity. Obviously, burning anyone at the stake is majorly screwed up, but it wasn't to cover up science.
  - cygx 10y ago
    Bruno actually was questioned on terrestrial motion: Firstly, I say that the theories on the movement of the earth and on the immobility of the firmament or sky are by me produced on a reasoned and sure basis, which doesn’t undermine the authority of the Holy Sciptures […]. With regard to the sun, I say that it doesn’t rise or set, nor do we see it rise or set, because, if the earth rotates on his axis, what do we mean by rising and setting[…]. That was part of his defense recorded during the interrogations shortly before his executions. Sadly, I don't read Italian, so the primary source Il sommario del processo di Giordano Bruno by Angelo Mercati is inaccessible to me.
cygx 10y ago
Actually, one of the eight propositions that got him executed was terrestrial movement, at least according to [1]. [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20120615050646/http://www.bruno-giordano.net/bio.html http://web.archive.org/web/20120615050646/http://www.bruno-g...

sqeaky 10y ago

It seems that your claim is that the astronomy had nothing to do with burning a man alive.... but there are many non-astronmer pagans not burned alive. Perhaps astronomy wasn't the only reason, but clearly the church was against any message, however scientific, that conflicted with their message. Scientists have this nasty habit of having evidence that complicates shutting them up while they live. EDIT - Grammar

danielam 10y ago
You offer a damning yet vague accusation (an easy one since slandering the Church is acceptable and even respectable today), but no argument. Since Bruno was mentioned, it must be noted that he didn't have any evidence for his claims, but what made him a heretic were claims that were radically anti-Christian, not idle speculation about the stars. (I should also mention that both Galileo and Kepler didn't exactly have the kindest words for Bruno.) Another good one: it is popular opinion that the Church viewed heliocentrism as a heretical position, sometimes followed by mentions of passages in the bible that talk about sunrises or sunsets or how it demotes Man's place in the cosmic order. Again, all that this demonstrates is ignorance -- ignorance of history, ignorance of the nature of science and the history of science and ignorance of the history of the bible and the nature of the texts within it. The "us vs. them" story of the enlightened forces of science battling the big, bad, evil Church is comical and stupid and the currency of people poorly educated on the subject. It's an easy narrative to hold to especially when it reaffirms what one wants to believe. It's all too common that people think it's okay to slander anyone you don't like or disagree with.
- cutler 10y ago
  Where's your evidence that the Catholic church did not consider the heliocentric view heretical?
  - throwaway1892 10y ago
    Where's your evidence that the Catholic church did consider the heliocentric view heretical?
- qb45 10y ago
  > Another good one: it is popular opinion that the Church viewed heliocentrism as a heretical position You bet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#1616_ban_against_Copernicanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#1616_ban_against... In February 1616, the Inquisition assembled a committee of theologians, known as qualifiers, who delivered their unanimous report condemning Heliocentrism as "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." This even landed Copernicus a spot on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (posthumously) even though he had been a Catholic cleric himself.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    This even landed Copernicus a spot on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (posthumously) even though he had been a Catholic cleric himself. Another interesting bit of trivia: far from being a medieval artifact of ignorance and oppression, the Index existed until 1966. Galileo received an apology in 1992, and as far as I'm aware Giordano Bruno remains unpardoned. But by all means, let's go back to the business of rehabilitating Christianity on the grounds that Bruno was a heretic, Hypatia a pagan, and Galileo an annoying jerk who got what was coming to him.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I take your point, but I think it's worth reflecting that the largest communities in the world where Christianity† needs to be "rehabilitated" are all Internet message boards. If you're working from the premise that Christianity is somehow working its way out from some kind of siege... well, not so much. Another thing worth remembering is the historical context we're talking about. The list of books banned by Catholicism had a far more important meaning when the Catholic church was a state (or an instrument of the state). It hasn't been that for a very long time. † (or, if you like, mainstream organized religions)

strictnein 10y ago

Not sure why you're being buried when you're correct. Too many people saw that Cosmos episode which was amazingly inaccurate. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/giordano-bruno-cosmos-heretic-scientist http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/giordano-bruno-cosmos-heret...

michaelsbradley 10y ago
See also atheist historian Tim O'Neill's blog posts: "Agora" and Hypatia - Hollywood Strikes Again http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/05/agora-and-hypatia-hollywood-strikes.html http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/05/agora-and-hypatia... Hypatia and "Agora" Redux http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/hypatia-and-agora-redux.html http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/hypatia-and-agora...
cygx 10y ago
That site lists the things Bruno was accused of, not the ones he got convicted for - a rather important difference, don't you think?
throwaway7645 10y ago
I was quite upset that they bended history so much for that episode. They even tried to present Lucretius's views on infinity as scientific. Correct, but not scientific but mystic. The big bang theory and a ton of other scientific discoveries have been made by catholic clergyman and laity. Obviously, burning anyone at the stake is majorly screwed up, but it wasn't to cover up science.
- cygx 10y ago
  Bruno actually was questioned on terrestrial motion: Firstly, I say that the theories on the movement of the earth and on the immobility of the firmament or sky are by me produced on a reasoned and sure basis, which doesn’t undermine the authority of the Holy Sciptures […]. With regard to the sun, I say that it doesn’t rise or set, nor do we see it rise or set, because, if the earth rotates on his axis, what do we mean by rising and setting[…]. That was part of his defense recorded during the interrogations shortly before his executions. Sadly, I don't read Italian, so the primary source Il sommario del processo di Giordano Bruno by Angelo Mercati is inaccessible to me.

cygx 10y ago

Actually, one of the eight propositions that got him executed was terrestrial movement, at least according to [1]. [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20120615050646/http://www.bruno-giordano.net/bio.html http://web.archive.org/web/20120615050646/http://www.bruno-g...