3 ms·
> It was calling for adherence to orthodoxy - in this case, its interpretation of Scripture. This paper[1] points out that the "proposition is foolish and abs
by josefx 7y ago
> It was calling for adherence to orthodoxy - in this case, its interpretation of Scripture.
This paper[1] points out that the "proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy" is denouncing its scientific rigor. Of course they are also pissed at him for reinterpreting Bible verses, that is how the church got involved in the mess first place.
[1]https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.6168.pdf https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.6168.pdf
- DiogenesKynikos 7y agoThe very next clause is > and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture The paper that you cite, claiming that the "proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy" refers to scientific rigor, is written by the same person who gave the interview OP linked (Graney). With all due respect to Graney, his arguments about Galileo come across as anachronistic apologia, trying to interpret the early-17th-Century Church as being interested in scientific rigor, rather than orthodoxy. Recall that the Galileo Affair occurred during the Counter-Reformation, a time when the Church was reeling due to the spread of Protestantism and was obsessed with orthodoxy and stamping out heresy. If you want a more neutral and historically accurate depiction of the Galileo Affair, read Maurice Finocchiaro's writings.
- josefx 7y ago> read Maurice Finocchiaro's writings. That is one of the authors he cites on the scientific rigor bit.