3 ms·

The inquisition wasn't a scientific test. Galileo was convicted of countering scripture. The level of error in his theory is besides the point and a good exampl

The inquisition wasn't a scientific test. Galileo was convicted of countering scripture. The level of error in his theory is besides the point and a good example of the kind of nitpicking to change narratives I discussed above. I think the idea that if his heliocentric model was more accurate it would have meant the Church instantly accepting him is extremely faulty. He was convicted of going against geocentrism in the bible, not being a bad scientist. The idea that the Catholic system was a strict meritocracy open to change is ridiculous. It defended its status quo and its scripture unfairly using absurdly powerful institutions like the Inquisition, in which it is more or less impossible to get a 'fair' trial, even by the low standards of theocratic justice.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
The point is, he wasn't convicted for his theory at all - he was convicted for being an asshole to the pope, and the talk about going against the scripture was just an excuse to make the sentence look more legitimate. Being an asshole to a very powerful politician (especially one that knows you personally) generally gets you into trouble, no matter the day and age.
- cygx 10y ago
  Perhaps you might be interested what Ernest R. Hull, author of Galileo and his condemnation [1] had to say about that? > Thirdly, to Catholic Apologists : > (1) Avoid the mistake of minimizing the official action of the Church authorities, or of understating the ground of their condemnation. The official documents plainly embody the view that the Copernican theory was not only "false" but also "heretical" because "altogether contrary to Scripture"; and Galileo was condemned as "grievously suspected of heresy," which heresy is defined as holding that the earth moved and the sun stood still." It is precisely in this dogmatical pronounce ment on the heretical character of the new astronomy that their blunder consisted. > (2) Do not try to cloak this blunder by arguing that Galileo brought all the trouble on himself by meddling in theology, or by his aggressiveness of manner. The clash with theology was inevitable, and must be forced upon him ; and his defence on this point was entirely sound and unexceptionable. His aggressiveness explains the amount of human passion which was aroused against him, but does not extenuate the act of condemning officially as heresy a doctrine which we all now know to be totally free from heresy. That Galileo was imprudent in forcing an official pronouncement does not diminish the error which the official pronouncement contains. > (3) Avoid also laving too much stress on the fact that Galileo was contumacious to Church authority. His contumacy might justify a disciplinary punish ment ; but once more, it does not cloak the blunder of charging his doctrines with heresy. > (4) There is no reason for trying to exonerate the Popes from all share in the action of the Congrega tions. Although their names do not appear in any official capacity, there is no doubt that they were fully conversant with what was being done ; that they partly directed the proceedings ; that they approved and sanctioned the decrees issued and the sentences pronounced. Our defence on this point lies simply in the fact that the Pope's approval of the acts of a Congregation does not raise them to ex cathedra definitions. [1] https://archive.org/details/galileoandhiscon00hulluoft https://archive.org/details/galileoandhiscon00hulluoft

TeMPOraL 10y ago

The point is, he wasn't convicted for his theory at all - he was convicted for being an asshole to the pope, and the talk about going against the scripture was just an excuse to make the sentence look more legitimate. Being an asshole to a very powerful politician (especially one that knows you personally) generally gets you into trouble, no matter the day and age.

cygx 10y ago
Perhaps you might be interested what Ernest R. Hull, author of Galileo and his condemnation [1] had to say about that? > Thirdly, to Catholic Apologists : > (1) Avoid the mistake of minimizing the official action of the Church authorities, or of understating the ground of their condemnation. The official documents plainly embody the view that the Copernican theory was not only "false" but also "heretical" because "altogether contrary to Scripture"; and Galileo was condemned as "grievously suspected of heresy," which heresy is defined as holding that the earth moved and the sun stood still." It is precisely in this dogmatical pronounce ment on the heretical character of the new astronomy that their blunder consisted. > (2) Do not try to cloak this blunder by arguing that Galileo brought all the trouble on himself by meddling in theology, or by his aggressiveness of manner. The clash with theology was inevitable, and must be forced upon him ; and his defence on this point was entirely sound and unexceptionable. His aggressiveness explains the amount of human passion which was aroused against him, but does not extenuate the act of condemning officially as heresy a doctrine which we all now know to be totally free from heresy. That Galileo was imprudent in forcing an official pronouncement does not diminish the error which the official pronouncement contains. > (3) Avoid also laving too much stress on the fact that Galileo was contumacious to Church authority. His contumacy might justify a disciplinary punish ment ; but once more, it does not cloak the blunder of charging his doctrines with heresy. > (4) There is no reason for trying to exonerate the Popes from all share in the action of the Congrega tions. Although their names do not appear in any official capacity, there is no doubt that they were fully conversant with what was being done ; that they partly directed the proceedings ; that they approved and sanctioned the decrees issued and the sentences pronounced. Our defence on this point lies simply in the fact that the Pope's approval of the acts of a Congregation does not raise them to ex cathedra definitions. [1] https://archive.org/details/galileoandhiscon00hulluoft https://archive.org/details/galileoandhiscon00hulluoft