7 ms·

Inquisition meant still burning or torturing people to death - or threatening of doing so, if they continue to speak heresy, like "the earth moves around the su

Inquisition meant still burning or torturing people to death - or threatening of doing so, if they continue to speak heresy, like "the earth moves around the sun". (Galileo and the Inquisition) Inquisition (which still exists today! only with no physical authority anymore) might be a bit missrepresented in their thirst for blood - but the harm they done over the centuries to free thinking and therefore advancement of science and technology and therefore progress of humanity as its whole - is something on its own validating their bad reputation.

Mikhail_Edoshin 6y ago
Do you know Galileo received a pension from the church? Galileo had many admirers among the clergy, including the pope himself, yet by publishing a book he broke an earlier agreement on not teaching his theory and this wasn't taken lightly. A modern analogy would be to break an NDA.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  Yes I know, that Galileo prefered the money and luxery(and de facto imprisonment) over death. How noble of the inquisition to offer him that. And comparing that with breaking an NDA, well I don't know. I didn't know NDA's contain that.
  - User23 6y ago
    If violating your NDA reveals a trade secret you can face prison, yes[1]. [1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-trade-secret-law.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-trade-sec...
    - hutzlibu 6y ago
      with the alternative of death at the stake?
      - mwigdahl 6y ago
        No, but that's why it's an analogy (and a reasonable one) rather than an exact equivalence.
        hutzlibu 6y ago
        You really think it is a reasonable analogy to threaten someone with burning at the stake and jailing someone because of a trade secret?
        User23 6y ago
        Yes, it follows from the definition of analogy. Perhaps you are thinking of equivalence instead? In that case you are correct that the two are not equivalent.
diegocg 6y ago
> torturing people to death No, the Spanish Inquisition strictly forbid torturing people to death (death only happened when people were condemned to it). There were, in fact, regulations that required to not provoke any bleeding (even just a drop) during the torture -you can cause severe damage without bleeding of course-, and the process had to stop if it happened. A person was dedicated to oversee the entire process and stop it in these cases. What people often misses is that these tortures weren't anything special at the time. The right to not be tortured is quite modern. The Inquisition just took a look at what the existing institutions were doing, and imitated it (regulating the entire process in the way: there were only three types of torture methods allowed, for example) The Inquisition wasn't an unified entity either - Galileo was condemned by the Roman Inquisition, but the Spanish Inquisition didn't have any problem with his theories and didn't forbid his books.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  Sorry, but for me burning to death is torturing to death. And I am aware, that the real inquisition was much more restrained, than their image - but it doesn't change anything for the better, of what they did. They represented the highest authority in terms of what was allowed to be thought and said. And they did use tortue and execution to cement their authority. Basically killing scientists for doing science. And stopping people to become scientists in the first place, as everyone knew what happened to free thinking scientists. Rather work your field, peaseant - or pray your prayers low monk. I cannot see anything positive in that institution.
  - anthk 6y ago
    That's false. More like confronting Catholicism, but even monks did science. How do you think cathedrals were built in Middle Ages? Weapons? Armory? Trebuchets? Astronomics to sail to "The Indians"? Monks were very faith-obsessed but not ultimately dumb to power. Also, the School of Salamanca (around Don Quixote era) was the roots of Humanism.
    - hutzlibu 6y ago
      Did I say no science happened? I said it was blocked a lot. Because when every research that you do, has to align to the literal words of a big book, under the explicit threat of burning at the stake - it is surprising, how much progress was possible despite of it.
bobthechef 6y ago
> Inquisition meant still burning or torturing people to death - or threatening of doing so, if they continue to speak heresy, like "the earth moves around the sun". A perfect example of the tidy little "big bad Church vs. SCIENCE (tm)" fables that refuse to die. The first problem with your statement is that somehow heliocentrism is heretical. Show me where this contradicts dogma. You can't because it's not true. A moment of reflection should make it obvious that it is utterly irrelevant, from a theological perspective, whether the ball of burning gas revolves around the rock or the rock resolves around the burning ball of gas. To claim that because the Bible uses language that speaks of the sun rising and setting, it must mean that such trivialities are theologically important is as absurd as claiming that geocentrism is widespread today because we still use that language. This is phenomenological and descriptive language that is only used as an occasion to convey some other point, not a scientific explanation. Common sense is easily blinded by bigotry. > (Galileo and the Inquisition) This whole "affair" actually lasted decades and really had nothing to do with heliocentrism. Galileo had made political enemies and was known for his harassment and vicious remarks directed at people in power, who, btw, were slow to anger; it took decades for him to finally be put under...house arrest overlooking the Vatican gardens. Seems pretty mild esp. given the witch hunts taking place in Protestant northern Europe at the time. > Inquisition (which still exists today! only with no physical authority anymore) might be a bit missrepresented in their thirst for blood - but the harm they done over the centuries to free thinking and therefore advancement of science and technology and therefore progress of humanity as its whole - is something on its own validating their bad reputation. Not this again. Show me where the brave, good, noble men of SCIENCE (tm) were prevented from climbing the hills of PROGRESS (tm) by the big, bad, mean old Church? If you peer a little more closely at the stock examples (Bruno is one), you find nothing of the sort. You find no such trend. This is a historically illiterate trope that, frankly, is embarrassing.
- goto11 6y ago
  The church did also ban the astronomical works by Copernicus and Kepler.
- cygx 6y ago
  For reference, here's an excerpt of Galileo's Papal Condemnation of 1633: > We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; [...]

Mikhail_Edoshin 6y ago

Do you know Galileo received a pension from the church? Galileo had many admirers among the clergy, including the pope himself, yet by publishing a book he broke an earlier agreement on not teaching his theory and this wasn't taken lightly. A modern analogy would be to break an NDA.

hutzlibu 6y ago
Yes I know, that Galileo prefered the money and luxery(and de facto imprisonment) over death. How noble of the inquisition to offer him that. And comparing that with breaking an NDA, well I don't know. I didn't know NDA's contain that.
- User23 6y ago
  If violating your NDA reveals a trade secret you can face prison, yes[1]. [1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-trade-secret-law.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-trade-sec...
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    with the alternative of death at the stake?
    - mwigdahl 6y ago
      No, but that's why it's an analogy (and a reasonable one) rather than an exact equivalence.
      - hutzlibu 6y ago
        You really think it is a reasonable analogy to threaten someone with burning at the stake and jailing someone because of a trade secret?
        User23 6y ago
        Yes, it follows from the definition of analogy. Perhaps you are thinking of equivalence instead? In that case you are correct that the two are not equivalent.

diegocg 6y ago

> torturing people to death No, the Spanish Inquisition strictly forbid torturing people to death (death only happened when people were condemned to it). There were, in fact, regulations that required to not provoke any bleeding (even just a drop) during the torture -you can cause severe damage without bleeding of course-, and the process had to stop if it happened. A person was dedicated to oversee the entire process and stop it in these cases. What people often misses is that these tortures weren't anything special at the time. The right to not be tortured is quite modern. The Inquisition just took a look at what the existing institutions were doing, and imitated it (regulating the entire process in the way: there were only three types of torture methods allowed, for example) The Inquisition wasn't an unified entity either - Galileo was condemned by the Roman Inquisition, but the Spanish Inquisition didn't have any problem with his theories and didn't forbid his books.

hutzlibu 6y ago
Sorry, but for me burning to death is torturing to death. And I am aware, that the real inquisition was much more restrained, than their image - but it doesn't change anything for the better, of what they did. They represented the highest authority in terms of what was allowed to be thought and said. And they did use tortue and execution to cement their authority. Basically killing scientists for doing science. And stopping people to become scientists in the first place, as everyone knew what happened to free thinking scientists. Rather work your field, peaseant - or pray your prayers low monk. I cannot see anything positive in that institution.
- anthk 6y ago
  That's false. More like confronting Catholicism, but even monks did science. How do you think cathedrals were built in Middle Ages? Weapons? Armory? Trebuchets? Astronomics to sail to "The Indians"? Monks were very faith-obsessed but not ultimately dumb to power. Also, the School of Salamanca (around Don Quixote era) was the roots of Humanism.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    Did I say no science happened? I said it was blocked a lot. Because when every research that you do, has to align to the literal words of a big book, under the explicit threat of burning at the stake - it is surprising, how much progress was possible despite of it.

bobthechef 6y ago

> Inquisition meant still burning or torturing people to death - or threatening of doing so, if they continue to speak heresy, like "the earth moves around the sun". A perfect example of the tidy little "big bad Church vs. SCIENCE (tm)" fables that refuse to die. The first problem with your statement is that somehow heliocentrism is heretical. Show me where this contradicts dogma. You can't because it's not true. A moment of reflection should make it obvious that it is utterly irrelevant, from a theological perspective, whether the ball of burning gas revolves around the rock or the rock resolves around the burning ball of gas. To claim that because the Bible uses language that speaks of the sun rising and setting, it must mean that such trivialities are theologically important is as absurd as claiming that geocentrism is widespread today because we still use that language. This is phenomenological and descriptive language that is only used as an occasion to convey some other point, not a scientific explanation. Common sense is easily blinded by bigotry. > (Galileo and the Inquisition) This whole "affair" actually lasted decades and really had nothing to do with heliocentrism. Galileo had made political enemies and was known for his harassment and vicious remarks directed at people in power, who, btw, were slow to anger; it took decades for him to finally be put under...house arrest overlooking the Vatican gardens. Seems pretty mild esp. given the witch hunts taking place in Protestant northern Europe at the time. > Inquisition (which still exists today! only with no physical authority anymore) might be a bit missrepresented in their thirst for blood - but the harm they done over the centuries to free thinking and therefore advancement of science and technology and therefore progress of humanity as its whole - is something on its own validating their bad reputation. Not this again. Show me where the brave, good, noble men of SCIENCE (tm) were prevented from climbing the hills of PROGRESS (tm) by the big, bad, mean old Church? If you peer a little more closely at the stock examples (Bruno is one), you find nothing of the sort. You find no such trend. This is a historically illiterate trope that, frankly, is embarrassing.

goto11 6y ago
The church did also ban the astronomical works by Copernicus and Kepler.
cygx 6y ago
For reference, here's an excerpt of Galileo's Papal Condemnation of 1633: > We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; [...]