5 ms·

The author conveniently fails to mention Galileo was found guilty of heresy by the Church, forced to retract his Dialogues and lived the rest of his life under

by lgvln 3y ago

The author conveniently fails to mention Galileo was found guilty of heresy by the Church, forced to retract his Dialogues and lived the rest of his life under house arrest for advocating the Copernican heliocentric model over the doctrinal geocentric model.[0] When one cherry picks evidence like that... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

cosymoments 3y ago
[dead]
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Well, that's not really how it happened. Don't forget that Galileo spilled a lot of ink in order to deliberately mock and humiliate the Holy Father at the time. His trial and sentence were not so much about his science than about his lousy attitude toward legitimate authority. There were other scientists who adhered to the Copernican perspective (Copernicus himself is a Roman Catholic priest) without so much trouble.
- lgvln 3y ago
  > His trial and sentence were not so much about his science than about his lousy attitude toward legitimate authority References? The charge of heresy is for heretic views, such as the Copernican heliocentric model in his case. It threatens to upend the authority of the Church; if the Church can be wrong about the nature of the universe then surely they can be wrong about other matters as well. His Dialogues remain banned by the Church till 1835, ~200 years later. To say that Galileo was convicted of heresy for "bad behaviour" is simply disingenuous.
  - tnecniv 3y ago
    The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements as well as valid scientific criticisms of his work. Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made: offering a sufficient condition for an occurrence does not prove that this condition caused the event. Him being tried and convicted of heresy doesn’t mean that his trial wasn’t politically motivated. Despots make up charges for political enemies constantly throughout history and heresy was an obvious choice The Pope had been a fan and political ally of his within the church even before his ascension, and Galileo didn’t just disregard his request for a discussion of geocentric theory but did so in a way that specifically called him an idiot and undermined his authority. The Pope, who was essentially the ruler of central Italy, couldn’t let that public ridicule slide whether or not Galileo intended it (historians think the slights were unintentional). This led to his second trial for heresy for which he was convicted. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
    - lgvln 3y ago
      > The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements I am not denying that there were political factors in play. I am saying that the main factor in play was his dissent against the Church. > valid scientific criticisms of his work. Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made There is a distinction between 'evidence that refutes the geocentric model' and 'evidence that supports the Copernican heliocentric model'. While the technology available did not allow him conclusively proof the Copernican heliocentric model (there were also issues with the model), the evidence he had strongly refuted the central thesis of the geocentric model - that Earth is the center of the universe and everything in the sky resolves around Earth. That lead him to advocate for the Copernican heliocentric model, inference to the best explanation. Galileo observed that Venus had phases despite remaining near the Sun in Earth's sky, which proves that Venus revolves the Sun, not the Earth, hence refutes the geocentric model. His discovery of the moons revolving Jupiter further refutes the geocentric model, that not everything in the sky revolves around Earth. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Copernican_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Copernican_sy...
jowea 3y ago
And pro-heliocentrism books remained in the Church's Index of banned books until 1758.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum#Changing_judgments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum#Ch...
jjaken 3y ago
That’s the one example anyone ever uses and it’s way oversimplified. It’s also something that occurred 400 years ago, conducted by a church that doesn’t exist anymore (the catholics have changed a lot in 400 years and the Inquisition has been dead a long time). The argument in the OP isn’t that religion hasn’t opposed or suppressed science. It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science. While some may wield religion to whatever ends suits them, the religion itself was merely the tool of the day. We see evidence of that throughout history, to oppose science or anything else.
- lgvln 3y ago
  What lies in the heart of the Galileo's Copernican Heliocentrism argument is the Church is and can be wrong, thus challenging the authority of the Church. It is often used as an example because it is the prime example of the beginning of The Enlightenment, also known as The Age of Reason, the triumph of reason and evidence over dogma, which gave rise to modernity. > It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science. Take the creation narrative in Genesis: the world was created ~10,000 years ago in 6 (or 7, depending on how you count it) days. Is that narrative in fundamental conflict with modern science? Can both the genesis creation narrative and the theory of evolution be right? What and who decides which is correct? Should reason and evidence guide our beliefs or ancient texts proclaimed to be sacred?
  - jjaken 3y ago
    Depends on the dogma. For some christian sects the old testament is genuinely a fable. It isn’t necessarily the religion, or spirituality more generally, that is opposed to science or rationality, but the dogma and way the spirituality/religion is taught/practiced.
    - tnecniv 3y ago
      That’s what they taught us in Catholic school as a kid. The Old Testament was a combination of parables and oral history before eventually being recorded. Moreover, we were taught that part of the significance of the Crucifixion was that it was to establish a new pact between humans and God, hence Jesus doing away with the old rules and commandments and Jesus commanding that the faith be spread beyond ethnic Jews.

by lgvln 3y ago

cosymoments 3y ago

[dead]

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

Well, that's not really how it happened. Don't forget that Galileo spilled a lot of ink in order to deliberately mock and humiliate the Holy Father at the time. His trial and sentence were not so much about his science than about his lousy attitude toward legitimate authority. There were other scientists who adhered to the Copernican perspective (Copernicus himself is a Roman Catholic priest) without so much trouble.

lgvln 3y ago
> His trial and sentence were not so much about his science than about his lousy attitude toward legitimate authority References? The charge of heresy is for heretic views, such as the Copernican heliocentric model in his case. It threatens to upend the authority of the Church; if the Church can be wrong about the nature of the universe then surely they can be wrong about other matters as well. His Dialogues remain banned by the Church till 1835, ~200 years later. To say that Galileo was convicted of heresy for "bad behaviour" is simply disingenuous.
- tnecniv 3y ago
  The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements as well as valid scientific criticisms of his work. Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made: offering a sufficient condition for an occurrence does not prove that this condition caused the event. Him being tried and convicted of heresy doesn’t mean that his trial wasn’t politically motivated. Despots make up charges for political enemies constantly throughout history and heresy was an obvious choice The Pope had been a fan and political ally of his within the church even before his ascension, and Galileo didn’t just disregard his request for a discussion of geocentric theory but did so in a way that specifically called him an idiot and undermined his authority. The Pope, who was essentially the ruler of central Italy, couldn’t let that public ridicule slide whether or not Galileo intended it (historians think the slights were unintentional). This led to his second trial for heresy for which he was convicted. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
  - lgvln 3y ago
    > The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements I am not denying that there were political factors in play. I am saying that the main factor in play was his dissent against the Church. > valid scientific criticisms of his work. Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made There is a distinction between 'evidence that refutes the geocentric model' and 'evidence that supports the Copernican heliocentric model'. While the technology available did not allow him conclusively proof the Copernican heliocentric model (there were also issues with the model), the evidence he had strongly refuted the central thesis of the geocentric model - that Earth is the center of the universe and everything in the sky resolves around Earth. That lead him to advocate for the Copernican heliocentric model, inference to the best explanation. Galileo observed that Venus had phases despite remaining near the Sun in Earth's sky, which proves that Venus revolves the Sun, not the Earth, hence refutes the geocentric model. His discovery of the moons revolving Jupiter further refutes the geocentric model, that not everything in the sky revolves around Earth. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Copernican_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Copernican_sy...

jowea 3y ago

And pro-heliocentrism books remained in the Church's Index of banned books until 1758.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum#Changing_judgments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum#Ch...

jjaken 3y ago

That’s the one example anyone ever uses and it’s way oversimplified. It’s also something that occurred 400 years ago, conducted by a church that doesn’t exist anymore (the catholics have changed a lot in 400 years and the Inquisition has been dead a long time). The argument in the OP isn’t that religion hasn’t opposed or suppressed science. It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science. While some may wield religion to whatever ends suits them, the religion itself was merely the tool of the day. We see evidence of that throughout history, to oppose science or anything else.

lgvln 3y ago
What lies in the heart of the Galileo's Copernican Heliocentrism argument is the Church is and can be wrong, thus challenging the authority of the Church. It is often used as an example because it is the prime example of the beginning of The Enlightenment, also known as The Age of Reason, the triumph of reason and evidence over dogma, which gave rise to modernity. > It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science. Take the creation narrative in Genesis: the world was created ~10,000 years ago in 6 (or 7, depending on how you count it) days. Is that narrative in fundamental conflict with modern science? Can both the genesis creation narrative and the theory of evolution be right? What and who decides which is correct? Should reason and evidence guide our beliefs or ancient texts proclaimed to be sacred?
- jjaken 3y ago
  Depends on the dogma. For some christian sects the old testament is genuinely a fable. It isn’t necessarily the religion, or spirituality more generally, that is opposed to science or rationality, but the dogma and way the spirituality/religion is taught/practiced.
  - tnecniv 3y ago
    That’s what they taught us in Catholic school as a kid. The Old Testament was a combination of parables and oral history before eventually being recorded. Moreover, we were taught that part of the significance of the Crucifixion was that it was to establish a new pact between humans and God, hence Jesus doing away with the old rules and commandments and Jesus commanding that the faith be spread beyond ethnic Jews.