2 ms·

> What's your source for the "most" here? Most of the major scientific minds beyond the control of the Inquisition (i.e., in Protestant Europe). Heliocentrism

> What's your source for the "most" here? Most of the major scientific minds beyond the control of the Inquisition (i.e., in Protestant Europe). Heliocentrism was widely accepted by the time of Galileo's death, even though diffraction had not yet been understood (meaning that the star-size objection was still unanswered). It's significant that the next generation of scientists - Hooke, Newton et al. - were committed to the New Science, rather than the old geocentric worldview. > So the scientific status of the claims was important as well. The scientific status of the claims was irrelevant to the Church. The idea that it was is pure modern apologia. From the context of the times (the Counter-Reformation) and the texts of the Inquisition's decisions (which emphasize the heretical nature of heliocentrism), it's clear that what the Church cared about was enforcing its control over doctrine. This was an era in which the Church was in a bitter battle against heresy, trying to fight the spread of Protestantism and reassert control.

foldr 7y ago
It's not the case that most of the major scientific minds beyond the control of the Inquisition immediately accepted Galileo's work. In fact, he was not particularly influential in scientific circles, in the short term. Of course the Church wanted to enforce its control over doctrine. But the Church was also fully aware that the Bible could potentially be interpreted in a way that was not contrary to heliocentrism. It simply wanted to avoid making a fairly significant doctrinal revision in the absence of a compelling scientific case for heliocentrism. That is not to say that such restrictions on scientific work are justified, merely that it's inaccurate to see the Church in this instance as acting from blind dogmatism.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  > But the Church was also fully aware that the Bible could potentially be interpreted in a way that was not contrary to heliocentrism. The Inquisition's assessment of heliocentrism explicitly contradicts your claim: > All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology. - The Inquisition, 1616 Your claim that > It simply wanted to avoid making a fairly significant doctrinal revision in the absence of a compelling scientific case for heliocentrism. ... is simply not supported at all by the Inquisition's own statements. The Inquisition was very clear that heliocentrism must be false, because it contradicted the literal meaning of Holy Scripture. The Inquisition didn't say that heliocentrism was an open question to consider. It positively declared that heliocentrism is false and that the Earth stands still, and it grounded that statement by pointing to a literal reading of Scripture. > it's inaccurate to see the Church in this instance as acting from blind dogmatism I don't see any possible way to interpret the Inquisition's judgment on heliocentrism as anything other than blind dogmatism. In modern apologia, the Inquisition's rulings are rarely cited, because they contradict the key points that modern apologists make (about the Church supposedly being interested in scientific caution, etc.). I get the sense that people are trying to defend the 17th Century Church from criticisms rooted in a modern sensibility (which accepts empiricism and rejects religious dogma), ignoring the fact that the 17th Century Church (and most people in Western Christendom at the time) did not share our modern sensibilities.

foldr 7y ago

It's not the case that most of the major scientific minds beyond the control of the Inquisition immediately accepted Galileo's work. In fact, he was not particularly influential in scientific circles, in the short term. Of course the Church wanted to enforce its control over doctrine. But the Church was also fully aware that the Bible could potentially be interpreted in a way that was not contrary to heliocentrism. It simply wanted to avoid making a fairly significant doctrinal revision in the absence of a compelling scientific case for heliocentrism. That is not to say that such restrictions on scientific work are justified, merely that it's inaccurate to see the Church in this instance as acting from blind dogmatism.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
> But the Church was also fully aware that the Bible could potentially be interpreted in a way that was not contrary to heliocentrism. The Inquisition's assessment of heliocentrism explicitly contradicts your claim: > All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology. - The Inquisition, 1616 Your claim that > It simply wanted to avoid making a fairly significant doctrinal revision in the absence of a compelling scientific case for heliocentrism. ... is simply not supported at all by the Inquisition's own statements. The Inquisition was very clear that heliocentrism must be false, because it contradicted the literal meaning of Holy Scripture. The Inquisition didn't say that heliocentrism was an open question to consider. It positively declared that heliocentrism is false and that the Earth stands still, and it grounded that statement by pointing to a literal reading of Scripture. > it's inaccurate to see the Church in this instance as acting from blind dogmatism I don't see any possible way to interpret the Inquisition's judgment on heliocentrism as anything other than blind dogmatism. In modern apologia, the Inquisition's rulings are rarely cited, because they contradict the key points that modern apologists make (about the Church supposedly being interested in scientific caution, etc.). I get the sense that people are trying to defend the 17th Century Church from criticisms rooted in a modern sensibility (which accepts empiricism and rejects religious dogma), ignoring the fact that the 17th Century Church (and most people in Western Christendom at the time) did not share our modern sensibilities.