philosophical book about God/religion for guy suffering existential angst and fear about afterlife possibility

[Westfold-II]

I don't see how the statement you quoted can be in any way claimed to be suggesting that Galileo just didn't know his stuff. All it says is that Galileo never proved that the Earth goes round the sun, though he added to the body of evidence that in the end was used to do so.

One can get the impression that his position was overall one that could not be supported (compare to this discussion). However, whether he conclusively provided the last proof or not, he provided enough argument to support a different worldview, and one which might have made a holocentric model a more likely one. When discussing this trial, I also wonder which arguments were decisive, and whether they were really interested in a balanced assessment in the second trial. This point of view is giving the impression of a scientific colloquium, however it was still an Inquisatory trial, and with dangerous precursers. This doesn't exclude that the church could in theory have been convinced or that members were very scientifically-minded. But I wonder if that was necessarily decisive in this trial.

Two points in relation to this and a question in relation to this:

Point 1) I've said this a couple of times, but in relation to the document SDM thinks explains everything here, the one about "absurd in philosophy and formally heretic" (exact wording uninteresting for the point), he didn't repent or retract or .. well, anything. Look at the date: 1616. Are you aware of Galileo being put into house arrest in 1616? Because that would be news. And it would be nice to see someone backing up SDMs claim that any books of Galileo were cencored at this date.

I read the document that discusses this wording. It puts a little more emphasis on the "absurd in philosophy", but I don't see how "formally heretical" changes its meaning (since it's separate by the same argument). I can see that they would not all have been convinced from the arguments alone, but the charge of heresy is still decisive. The argument of the size of the stars that he uses is addressed by Galileo in the Dialogue, and exposed as an illuminary illusion of the instrument. The supposedly "unscientific" argument that justifies the mere existence of a multitude of other and giant start, which appeals to Divine Majesty and Omnipotence, might be given a stronger meaning than it has. It is a common metaphorical gesture that basically contradicts the charge that it's all "pointless" and against the Divine Majesty and Omnipotence. It more or less says, this is just a matter of perspective... But this is not a central argument, and I wonder if it was even made.

I'm aware of the different dates, and I meant the second trial as Galileo's forced retraction. But it's worth noting that so far no distinction of the dates has been made, not even in the historical account that you linked or the quotes that were used, or the possible "tolerance" involved (which was clearly variable at the time period).

Point 2) What was decided in 1616, was that, not unreasonable at all, Galileo should stop treating heliocentrism as fact, because that position was scientifically untenable. There were few points in favour, and quite a lot going against it. Galileo, and a couple of others, had observed the phases of Venus, and that disproved the Ptolemaic system, but not the favoured Tychonic system. Also, Galileo (a whole day ahead of another observer, Simon Marius), observed that Jupiter had moons, which again was devastation for the Aristotelian view where everything moves around the Earth. However, it doesn't amont to a proof against most of the systems in play at the time. Also, Galileo (together with three others, though some of it unpublished) observed sunspots. That you take from the O'Neill answer that Galileo didn't know his stuff is .. odd, as it is not in dispute that he observed these events. However he was never the only one (going against his claim to be unique), and none of these prove heliocentrism.

You see, there were problems with the heliocentric position, which Galileo couldn't counter. See here, part 2, for a quick rundown (but read the whole thing, as it's enlightening for most). And Galileo did know these problems. He had also tried to observe a parallax, and failed. So he relied on his argument that the tides prove heliocentrism.

And the question: what do you mean with "Galileos very influential method"?

Scientifically untenable as fact perhaps, but not scientifically untenable in total. And that is often made into one. And such a large discovery honestly warrants some conviction and propagation, in order to be proved further, of course. The claim of the justified doubt at the time is giving the impression that it was just about scientific doubt, and that the judgement did not have any effect on the rift between science and religion at all, and was not intended to curtail specific research, as is commonly thought. But that seems absurd, and that's the main point. Why not admit it as well?

You said that Galilei was "wrong", and Kepler was "right". However, what about an error margin? Also, apparently he didn't yet have a dynamic understanding of the orbits as Newton did, which might have easily convinced him. But all arguments taken together (and there was some more) were enough to support and encourage the research of a new position. I also wonder if we really have to take all the judges as the scientific illuminaries of the time, giving Galileo a lesson in science...

When referring to Galileo's very influential method, I mean his method of understanding nature geometrically and his work on mechanics for which he is taken to be a precursor of Newtonian physics. I also mean his observations and general efficacy in trying to understand things better. That doesn't just come from reading a book and can make all the difference in scientific competence between him and a learned churchman.

[polishgenius]

that may make a nice fantasy setting, wherein brave hero must battle to the death red herrings, strawpersons, dead horses, true scotsmen, two-horned monsters, evil circles, cherrypickers, samuel johnson, and hitler.

There's a quality indy Metroidvania game in there somewhere.

[Grogsmash]

You are really getting sidetracked if you get into a debate about whether Galileo was "right" or not. Whether he was right or not, he didn't deserve to have his books banned, kept in indefinite imprisonment or told he can no longer teach his ideas. This is a literature forum, can we at least agree on that here?

My source is the wikipedia page on his punishments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

If this is wrong, please submit the correction to wikipedia.

[Rorshach]

One can get the impression that his position was overall one that could not be supported (compare to this discussion). However, whether he conclusively provided the last proof or not, he provided enough argument to support a different worldview, and one which might have made a holocentric model a more likely one. When discussing this trial, I also wonder which arguments were decisive, and whether they were really interested in a balanced assessment in the second trial. This point of view is giving the impression of a scientific colloquium, however it was still an Inquisatory trial, and with dangerous precursers. This doesn't exclude that the church could in theory have been convinced or that members were very scientifically-minded. But I wonder if that was necessarily decisive in this trial.

To start at the top, his position was supported in a way, but the balance of evidence at the time was still very much against it. I'll return to that towards the end. As for the second trial, that was in response to Dialogo, wherein Galileo alienated his biggest supporter at the time, the pope. As such, it is quite possible to lay that at the feet of politics. Still, not much had changed wrt scientific discoveries between 1616 and 1634. The biggest change, according to Thony Christie (I haven't looked up the correct post here, as I don't remember where it was written) was that Galileo's system was on its way out at this time - astronomical models had value according to how well they predicted heavenly movements, and in that regard Kepler's and Tycho's were way ahead of the pack, owing to them being based on meticulus (sp?) observations. The debate was settled by default around 1660, when Kepler won out (figuratively speaking, as they were both dead..:) )

As for the point of the church allowing the theory: they did. Galileo was told he was free to teach it as theory. Galileo, however, wanted to teach it as fact. This becomes more interesting in relation to the following:

I read the document that discusses this wording. It puts a little more emphasis on the "absurd in philosophy", but I don't see how "formally heretical" changes its meaning (since it's separate by the same argument). I can see that they would not all have been convinced from the arguments alone, but the charge of heresy is still decisive. The argument of the size of the stars that he uses is addressed by Galileo in the Dialogue, and exposed as an illuminary illusion of the instrument. The supposedly "unscientific" argument that justifies the mere existence of a multitude of other and giant start, which appeals to Divine Majesty and Omnipotence, might be given a stronger meaning than it has. It is a common metaphorical gesture that basically contradicts the charge that it's all "pointless" and against the Divine Majesty and Omnipotence. It more or less says, this is just a matter of perspective... But this is not a central argument, and I wonder if it was even made.

I'm aware of the different dates, and I meant the second trial as Galileo's forced retraction. But it's worth noting that so far no distinction of the dates has been made, not even in the historical account that you linked or the quotes that were used, or the possible "tolerance" involved (which was clearly variable at the time period).

Firstly, let's note that that document (I assume you meant the one SDM linked) discusses the punctation first and foremost, and how that relates to the "absurd in philosophy"-part. However, what one needs to keep in mind here is that Aristotelian (or, more precicely, Thomist) metaphysics is the name of the philosophical game. Therefore, "formal" takes on a different meaning that it does today. Here, "formal" means "the form something has taken", and it is opposed to "essence", which is the true nature of things. Following that, "formally heretic" means that the statement, following the knowledge available at the time, was heretical in the form given to it by Galileo - that is, taught as fact. Thus, it clashes with current interpretation of parts of the Bible. However, as Cardial Bellarmie notes, reinterpreting those passages wouldn't be insurmountable. The Church operated with a fourfold interpretation: literal, allegorical (or typological), moral and anagogical. Thus, finding the correct interpretation could take time, and changing interpretation in light of new discoveries wasn't that big of a deal.

As for the size of the stars, well, Galileo was right about that. But for him it was a lucky guess - he had no way of knowing. The instruments available were not of good enough quality. Thus, from a scientific standpoint, Galileo justified his position, which was known to be problematic, by introducing a wild guess. And, for that matter, he had tried to observe a stellar parallax - and failed (again due to inferior quality of equipment).

Scientifically untenable as fact perhaps, but not scientifically untenable in total. And that is often made into one. And such a large discovery honestly warrants some conviction and propagation, in order to be proved further, of course. The claim of the justified doubt at the time is giving the impression that it was just about scientific doubt, and that the judgement did not have any effect on the rift between science and religion at all, and was not intended to curtail specific research, as is commonly thought. But that seems absurd, and that's the main point. Why not admit it as well?

You said that Galilei was "wrong", and Kepler was "right". However, what about an error margin? Also, apparently he didn't yet have a dynamic understanding of the orbits as Newton did, which might have easily convinced him. But all arguments taken together (and there was some more) were enough to support and encourage the research of a new position. I also wonder if we really have to take all the judges as the scientific illuminaries of the time, giving Galileo a lesson in science...

And here we are at an interesting part again. As already stated, the Church could accept heliocentrism as theory. Note that Copernicus was still not banned (he was for five years after this, then released from the Index), and neither was Kepler. So the theory existed, had its adherents and wasn't banned. Galileo's teaching it as fact, though, was. Thus I see no reason to admit to any rift between science and religion here, unless you want to paint Galileo as the religious man (which, by the way, he was. Devout Catholic). The theory lived on, and died a natural death (that is, Galileo's) because it was worse in explaining the heavens than both Tycho's and Keplers, by a good margin. As for your last sentence, you should. Unknown to most these days, courtesy of the Conflict Thesis, all education in this period was Church education. Which means that your average Cardinal was indeed likely to be a scientist (to use the term freely, we are some 300 years prior to it but whatever). Don't believe me? Read around. Like most of what SDM doesn't like here, it's still a fact. The Church was indeed a place where science could be judged according to merit - and Galileo's was.

As for Newton, that was the final piece of the puzzle - however, he arrived on the scene almost 100 years too late..

(I haven't been to Thony's place in a while. This brief introduction is enlightening.)

When referring to Galileo's very influential method, I mean his method of understanding nature geometrically and his work on mechanics for which he is taken to be a precursor of Newtonian physics. I also mean his observations and general efficacy in trying to understand things better. That doesn't just come from reading a book and can make all the difference in scientific competence between him and a learned churchman.

His work on mechanics is excellent, I've been told. I see no reason to disregard that notion. As for observations and general efficacy, well, no. Read the Thony piece above, it delves into his motivations more. Tycho and Kepler are a lot better role models in this regard.

[Rorshach]

You are really getting sidetracked if you get into a debate about whether Galileo was "right" or not. Whether he was right or not, he didn't deserve to have his books banned, kept in indefinite imprisonment or told he can no longer teach his ideas. This is a literature forum, can we at least agree on that here?

My source is the wikipedia page on his punishments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

If this is wrong, please submit the correction to wikipedia.

Substitute "indefinited imprisonment" for "house arrest", and you're not wrong. The house in question being his own.

[SomeDeadMan]

Since I'm left with no choice but to write an actual essay on the Galileo affair, I'm going to afford myself a moment of frankness. I think Rorshach is quite knowledgable, and maybe even does have his degree in history - who can really say, all he’s done is link to a bunch of freely available sources; maybe his degree is in Googling. I do know, though, that he is someone who is willing to defend the abhorrent historical acts of religious organisations by obscuring the accepted history and perverting the truth. And it leaves a deeply, deeply unpleasant taste in my mouth that of everyone who's involved in this discussion, the only other person to point out that Rorshach was effectively whitewashing the fucking inquisition of Galileo was not a Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, Baptist, theist, or deist at all. But it was a non-theist. To me, this is a good anecdote of what a powerful toxin religion is, and how it will numb the critical faculties of those who are exposed to it.

This essay sets out to discuss my two main points (which have been called into contention): Galileo Galilee was put under house arrest by the Holy See because he committed heresy, that is to say, he was named a heretic; I phrase the point in this way, because there has been an attempt within the conversation to create a meaningful distinction between the act of heresy and the state of being a heretic. Furthermore, I will also make the case that Galileo's work was placed upon the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, the list of the Church's banned books; a list of works which are considered harmful to the faith. To establish my arguments, I will proffer a timeline of relevant events; and explain, in adequate detail, Galileo's acquaintances, and the context they acted in. I will also explain, and give context to the 1616 Inquisition report, as it's proven such a controversy.

I'll begin my timeline with the publication of Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies), an arbitrary decision which I have no doubt one could dispute as a good beginning, so I will concede, in order to avoid any sort of dawdling on such a tertiary point, that other starting points could be argued to be equally valid. No less, it’s where my tale will begin.

In 1543, Copernicus published a book containing the catalyst for the grave injustice which would later befall Galileo - the grave injustice which has been defended in this thread. That book, oft shortened to Revolutions, was to posit a theory which would shake the Church’s doctrinal understanding to the core. It would audaciously suggest that the sun did not revolve around the Earth, but that the Earth revolved around the sun (I wouldn't be surprised if some of you are still undecided as to which side of that debate you fall). Until this point, Claudius Ptolemy’s theory had been the bee’s knees. For more than a thousand years, Ptolemy’s geocentric theory - the theory that the sun revolved around the Earth - had reigned supreme. Alas, by virtue of Occam’s Razor and a hell of a lot of logic and evidence, he was bested by the simpler heliocentric model, a form of which was advanced by Copernicus.

Copernicus wasn’t perfect however. His work was relatively basic, and duly riddled with errors. This is, as we know, obviously how science develops. One scientist postulates a theory, which is eventually falsified, and bested by a better one. This, too, was the case with Copernicus. Sadly, we need to stop the story here though. Because science couldn’t freely develop then as it can now. The golden hand of the Papacy, as it so often did, halted man’s mental evolution. Copernicus was unable to assert himself freely. This comes into play later with Galileo, too.

Copernicus understood that what he was saying was heresy. And since heresy was a crime which the Catholic Church permitted the torture thereof, he was like ‘Fuck that shit’ when it came to the possibility of martyring himself for the sun with all the gloriously ironic, ritualistic connotations that evokes. He chose, instead of potential torture, to be extremely cautious in his wording. Copernicus made it very clear that he was merely ‘putting it out there’ that mathematically this heretical notion was possible. He even dedicated the book to the Pope of the time, Paul III. It’s really no surprise then that Copernicus the canon’s highly equivocated work escaped the dark eye of the Holy See…

Well, at least for now.

Of course we should also make mention of the fact that his math n’ shit was all over the place, but his observations made it clear to him that heliocentrism was simply a far better theory than geocentrism; he understood that geocentrism just didn’t hold up, and he planted the heliocentric seed which Kepler and Galileo would later water.

Now, on to the fateful year of 1616. A year which has caused us, my faithful readers, a terrible amount of consternation: the atheists among us at the thought of the raging inquisitors, who’ve tortured and murdered their way over a continent, catching scent of a scientist advocating ‘heresy’; the religious among us at the thought of that big drama queen Galileo Galilee throwing a huff with the Church. 1616 is of course the year of the infamous report.

Before we delve into the main event, let’s remind ourselves of what the Christian Inquisition was. The Inquisition, Polish’s Church decided to hold, was an attempt to wipe the world clean of any dissenting opinion, which the Catholic Church just wasn’t that into. This infamously involved the destruction of literature, as well as its banning, but also the prosecution of crimes against the Faith. Crimes such as, you know, blasphemy, immorality, Protestantism, to the fun stuff, like witchcraft and sorcery. I’m sure those trials were nice and fair. ‘Oh,’ you may say, ‘That’s terrible n’ all, but I’m sure they just got a slap on the wrists, we’re good Christian people!’ Well, you would be wrong. You would be very wrong. Let’s example the punishments of those found ‘guilty’ in the Spanish Inquisition.

There was, of course, the old favourite ‘strappado’: 'In one version, the hands of the accused were tied behind his back and the rope looped over a brace in the ceiling of the chamber or attached to a pulley. Then the subject was raised until he was hanging from his arms. This might cause the shoulders to pull out of their sockets. Sometimes, the torturers added a series of drops, jerking the subject up and down. Weights could be added to the ankles and feet to make the hanging even more painful.’

Or maybe you and one lucky mage friend can visit the rack! ‘The rack was another well-known torture method associated with inquisition. The subject had his hands and feet tied or chained to rollers at one or both ends of a wooden or metal frame. The torturer turned the rollers with a handle, which pulled the chains or ropes in increments and stretched the subject's joints, often until they dislocated. If the torturer continued turning the rollers, the accused's arms and legs could be torn off. Often, simply seeing someone else being tortured on the rack was enough to make another person confess.’

Thousands died in the Roman Inquisition alone, in an attempt to wipe out heresy - the Spanish Inquisition is hard to even consider. The reason I’ve stressed this here is because I want to impress upon the reader how harrowing it is to be accused of heresy in this period of history. The pressure and fear and oppression one must overcome in order to even allow for the possibility of one even maybe being accused is almost impossible to imagine. It’s these horrors of history which make my toes curl when someone downplays the risk in which Galileo took, and the disgusting actions of the Church. Here’s an early correspondence from Galileo to Kepler, in which he expresses his fear at holding Copernican:

"I have not dared until now to bring my reasons and refutations into the open, being warned by the fortunes of Copernicus himself, our master, who procured for himself immortal fame among a few but stepped down among the great crowd.”"

But yes, I digress. In 1613, Galileo got a bit bold, and wrote this guy, called Benedetto Castelli, a letter with all diz crazee shit in it. Guy called Father Lorini fumed about this. Galileo had the temerity to stand against the absolutist imposition of scriptural understanding, and suggested a figurative interpretation. Big mistake, ‘cause in 1615, Niccolo Lorini runs away to the Inquisition like a little bitch, reporting Galileo for his Copernican shizz, and with that complaint is - yup - the letter Galileo sent to Castelli. Dick move, right? Yeah, it’s worse. Lorini modified the letter, and he attached his own li’l blurb. People were out to get Galileo.

Now, before we get to the formally heretical bit, let’s look at our Polish’s hero, Cardinal Bellarmine, ‘Master of Controversial Questions'. He’s still skulking in the shadows at this point, cautioning in April of 1615 that scientists must view Copernican views as a hypothesis - you’ll see that he cautions against ALL Copernican views, not just Galileo’s - that means Kepler’s, too. Here are extracts of Bellarmine’s letter in response to Foscarini (an advocate of Copernican theory):

"First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.”

"Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles."

To my dear friend Polish, I ask how one can use this man as some sort of saviour of the cause. The quote, I believe you used earlier, was from his third part of the letter (which I’ve flung in with the links at the bottom). How perverse it is to use his explanation of what he’d need to do if he was proved, beyond any doubt, false, as an example of the Church’s understanding. Particularly bearing in mind the fact they were actively blocking Galileo’s widely available work from being printed, or developing. How perverse to use such a quote from a letter such as that included above. This shows that i) the church did resist all Copernican theory, and secondly, that they did think it heresy.

Woosh! We’ve now returned to 1616. You’ll recall Galileo’s suspected ‘heretical’ letter (by the definition of the Master of Controversial Question’s own word) has been past to the Inquisitors. Uh-oh. Shit’s gonna go down. Galileo is summoned before our Master of Controversial Questions, Cardinal Bellarmine. And on 26th February 1616, Galileo has a precept declared against him. He is ordered to cease to defend heliocentrism in any way whatsoever. No longer, by decree of this Pope, would Galileo be allowed to advocate heliocentrism.

Another aside, unfortunately! But we must be thorough. The precept against Galileo - its legitimacy is questioned. Was it a faked precept, was it a real precept? This is contentious. And I think this may be, although I can’t be sure, the controversy Rorshach is familiar with and grasping at with every ounce of strength in his tawdry objections. The legitimacy is up to you to decide, but here’s an abstract (linked at the bottom):

"On 26 February 1616 Galileo was ordered to cease to defend heliocentrism in any way whatsoever. This order, called a precept, automatically applied to anything he might later attempt to publish on the subject. Issued at the end of his first trial by the Roman Inquisition, the precept became the spark that triggered his second trial in 1632–3 and figured importantly in the justification of his sentence. This precept has been a subject of controversy since the late nineteenth century for its authenticity, legality and legitimacy. This paper addresses the first two points and establishes the facts of what probably happened in 1616. It does so by examining seven texts that bear on the event. All but one of these (plus Galileo's first deposition in 1633) agree tolerably well that Galileo did indeed receive the precept in the strongest form. An examination of the singleton text in the context of how the Inquisition produced and kept its records as well as of its procedures and personnel shows that it is the least reliable source. This context also supports the argument that certainty about what happened is impossible to achieve. The theory that the document most damaging to Galileo was a forgery is also disposed of. Examination of the crucial phrasesuccessive ac incontinenti in one of the documents supports the paper's suggestion that more caution is in order before accepting the currently nearly universal claim that the precept was improper in law.” - Thomas F. Mayer, British Journal for the History of Science, 2009.

I’m willing to proceed on the basis that the case has been made that the precept is real. Frankly, I think it suits my case better that it isn’t faked, because I don’t care if there was a conspiracy against Galileo. All I’m looking to prove is that the Church’s fundamentalism reproached scientific enquiry. Which I have shown in Bellarmine’s own letter in which he reproaches the heretical idea of heliocentrism. The fact they took a fuckin’ precept out against him is great for my case. So although I’m happy to proceed on those terms, I don’t want to mislead the reader into thinking this is a foregone conclusion. On the precept, Douglas Linder of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, writes:

"Many things about the entry are suspicious. It appears in the Inquisition file where one would expect the actual Bellarmine injunction (if it existed) to appear. Moreover, the entry appears on the same page as the entry for the previous day--and every other report, legal act, and entry in the entire file begins at the top of a new page. It is widely believed by historians that the reported injunction of Galileo was "a false injunction": the injunction never happened, but a false report was maliciously planted in the file by one of Galileo's enemies. Seventeen years later, Galileo would stand before the Inquisition charged with violating an injunction that was, in all likelihood, never issued against him.”

So he took his 'reprimand'. No more heliocentrism. And no more Copernicus. A slow decade. After Galileo brought Copernicus to the masses, by writing in Italian and not Latin (the language only the elite could understand), the church banned both of them. Boom. Done. Kepler then published Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae, which also advocated the heliocentric system, and which too, was banned in 1619. In 1620 the Congregation of the Index issued the corrections required to Copernicus’ Revolutions before it can be read - a hack job, obviously.

Things got a bit more interesting in 1623. Guy called Maffeo Barberini, an old BFF of Galileo’s, ascends to the Seat of Opulence and Wealth, under the name Pope Urban VIII. Galileo has several audiences with the new Pope, acquiring assurances in 1624 that he may write about Copernican theory as long as it’s only as a mathematical hypothesis. Shit’s goin’ pretty well, right? Well… Too well. After a relatively good decade, Galileo’s new book, the Dialogue, which was initially looking like it’d be published no problem, was suddenly submitted for inspection by… The Inquisition. Bum, bum, buuuuum.

Galileo does everything he can to avoid the inquisition (wouldn’t you?), but eventually can’t escape it. In 1633, Galileo is submitted to an 18 day inquisition. Galileo equivocates on the Copernican idea. The Pope decides he will be indefinitely imprisoned anyway. He is examined by the inquisition again - this time under formal threat of torture. He no longer believes in heliocentrism. Ta-da!

"We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo... have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world.” (fully included as a link at the bottom, signed by 7 of his 10 Judges)

The Church, via brute force, silences a dissenter. It doesn’t matter how right or wrong, or down or up Galileo was. The point, very obviously, is that the Church would silence critics, and scientists it did not like.

The Church wasn’t amused with the whole affair. Until now, they had ardently defended the geocentric position because the Pope said so, and the Pope in Catholic doctrine is infallible. Of course, we can’t be too hard on the old chap, he did have a sound primary source. The Word of God, after all, is perfect:

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)”

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm " (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast" (Isaiah 45:18)

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

So the fact that his teachings turned out to be bullshit, and someone was willing to tell the Italian people, in Italian, that his teachings were in fact bullshit was a li’l embarrassing. Basically, it raised the idea that it might not be wise to accept the commands of some ponce in finery, whose luxuries their tithe (and contemporarily, assumedly yours, Polish) is paying for, all based on faith alone. And more so, troublingly for them, it was the first wrench of humanity throwing off the shackles that bind. Darwin would later heave us free of the other. The Catholic Church’s mind control was wearing off, the spell had been broken, the Pope had just been sucker punched by science, and one brave bastard was telling the world the good news. The Pope, everyone would come to realise, was far from infallible.

It wasn’t until the 18th century when the Catholic Church finally accepted heliocentrism, having slowed its development down God knows how long. And that’s it. Galileo was called a heretic and his work was banned, both done by the Church.

But hey! Y’know, I’m sure, like, Rorshach just wants to ‘teach the controversy’.

But seriously, I didn’t write this for Rorshach, he’s gone. He’s away on another planet. I actually wrote this because Polish said he entered the conversation convinced of the ‘mainstream’ history, but left more sympathetic to the apologist. I don’t expect this essay to have convinced you either way, if you even read it, but I do hope I have at least raised enough points that you will not accept the debauched view Rorshach presents, and look deeper into the overall body of work - the accepted and shared history of the inquisition and Galileo - not just the few dissenters he’s been able to dig up.

http://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/spanish-inquisition3.htm

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XGaEjPVw9cwC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Astronomia+nova+church+reaction&source=bl&ots=Mvg6cndbP4&sig=JKOR1nkM2NqlJV1VHW7Yu0ojHL0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8j_OU4KXG6PE7Abl-IBI&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Astronomia%20nova%20church%20reaction&f=false

http://galileo.rice.edu/chr/congregation.html

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IKW-4LyQeHYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=retrying+galileo&ots=GijdB0V34l&sig=dsaF0BCH-I9JmDiqRKRThGSKx4Q#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileochronology.html

http://www.inters.org/Galilei-Benedetto-Castelli

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1615bellarmine-letter.asp

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7892276

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/famoustrials/galileo.php

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SMiqYHR6xkMC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=kepler+index+of+forbidden+books&source=bl&ots=4BPQQzGgoZ&sig=6J72xp1lQyfkCmC9nhDeLJ5KbnI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=to7OU66COuHH7Abm7YHoDw&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=kepler%20index%20of%20forbidden%20books&f=false

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.asp

EDIT:

TL;DR:

They charged him with heresy and banned his book.

[Grogsmash]

Great great post SomeDeadMan. Can't believe you wrote an entire essay for this thread, but nice work. Should be pretty hard to argue that you are somehow only arguing with strawmen.

[Wise Fool]

Great great post SomeDeadMan. Can't believe you wrote an entire essay for this thread, but nice work. Should be pretty hard to argue that you are somehow only arguing with strawmen.

Oh, except for these ones, of course.

[SomeDeadMan]

Great great post SomeDeadMan. Can't believe you wrote an entire essay for this thread, but nice work. Should be pretty hard to argue that you are somehow only arguing with strawmen.

Hahaha, yeah, I'm hoping it comes in useful for something else at some point!

I just wanted to get my entire point across, after I resorted to sarcasm last night out of pure fatigue.

[Rorshach]

The suppositions, logical leaps and misconceptions in your essay are too numerous. But it's interesting to note, just for shits and giggles that both Tim O'Neill (who you threw off with an assertion and not an argument) and Thony Christie, whom I've linked a couple of times, are atheists. You call me knowledgable, thanks.

I can't return the compliment here. Suffice to say, history isn't your strong suite.

[SomeDeadMan]

The suppositions, logical leaps and misconceptions in your essay are too numerous. But it's interesting to note, just for shits and giggles that both Tim O'Neill (who you threw off with an assertion and not an argument) and Thony Christie, whom I've linked a couple of times, are atheists. You call me knowledgable, thanks.

I can't return the compliment here. Suffice to say, history isn't your strong suite.

Everything substantial I say is covered by source, so I'm cool wiv dat, yo

I guess I should do a TL;DR:

They charged him with heresy and banned his book.

I love when shit goes full circle.

[Rorshach]

Everything substantial I say is covered by source, so I'm cool wiv dat, yo

Except it's not. You draw up a picture of Inquisition torture for some two paragraphs, without linking it to Galileo. You should, otherwise you create a misleading impression that, indeed, torture was at stake. However, you have not shown (nor has anyone else) that this was the case. Why? Because it wasn't.

Then you put up something I suspect you lifted from Hans Küng about Copernicus not publishing because of the Index and fear of burning. At this point I'd like you to point to actual burnings of scientists (well, proto-scientists), and also to point out that the Galileo project, which you link, points out that the Index was created at the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Copernicus died in 1543. So, for Küng to be correct, Copernicus needed to be clairvoyant. I suspect you don't share that view.

You continue to write "To my dear friend Polish, I ask how one can use this man as some sort of saviour of the cause. The quote, I believe you used earlier, was from his third part of the letter (which I’ve flung in with the links at the bottom). How perverse it is to use his explanation of what he’d need to do if he was proved, beyond any doubt, false, as an example of the Church’s understanding. Particularly bearing in mind the fact they were actively blocking Galileo’s widely available work from being printed, or developing. How perverse to use such a quote from a letter such as that included above. This shows that i) the church did resist allCopernican theory, and secondly, that they did think it heresy. ".

Here you err again. Galileo was placed on the Index. In 1634. Which means, of course that you're third to last sentence here is false. And how is it irresponsible for Bellarmie to ask for proof of a theory before it is taught as fact? His first paragraph says he's glad is taught as hypothesis.. why would he write that, if he vehemently opposed the idea with all his being? Your interpretation is .. lacking.

You continue to write "In 1620 the Congregation of the Index issued the corrections required to Copernicus’ Revolutions before it can be read - a hack job, obviously. ". Please provide proof for your bolded (my bolding, btw) assertion. That is another non-sourced claim. You are good at those!

You continue with "Galileo has several audiences with the new Pope, acquiring assurances in 1624 that he may write about Copernican theory as long as it’s only as a mathematical hypothesis. Shit’s goin’ pretty well, right? Well… Too well. After a relatively good decade, Galileo’s new book, the Dialogue, which was initially looking like it’d be published no problem, was suddenly submitted for inspection by… The Inquisition. Bum, bum, buuuuum. " So why, then, do you skip the story here? Why did the inquisition come into play? Because Galileo played according to plan and presented a mathematical hypothesis? Bollocks, he did. And he insulted the pope in the bargain. Wonder why the light of truth that is you left that out. Nah, scratch that. I know. You need to protect your view.

Then you write " He is examined by the inquisition again - this time under formal threat of torture. He no longer believes in heliocentrism. Ta-da! " Source needed. Assertion again, unsupported. Man, are you boring.

Your last paragraph is your crap summary. Seeing as just about all you wrote is unsubstantiated, irrelevant (long paragraphs about torture), crap analysis and omissions, I wonder how you can, with a straight face, write the sentence quoted above.

TL;DR. The quote on top of this post is false.

[Grogsmash]

Rorshach, I'm interested in your opinion on the Cathar heresy. The popular understanding was that it was an attempt by the church to crush dissent, that led to even worse abuses later on.

[Grogsmash]

And he insulted the pope in the bargain.

You keep saying this as if its some support of your position. Even if Galileo straight up attacked the Pope, the fact he was (partially) punished for what we would say is simply his opinion today, seems to contradict that the Church was simply interested in scientific standards or something.

[Rorshach]

You keep saying this as if its some support of your position. Even if Galileo straight up attacked the Pope, the fact he was (partially) punished for what we would say is simply his opinion today, seems to contradict that the Church was simply interested in scientific standards or something.

Read what I've written on that through the thread. I'm tired of SDM not bothering, I don't want to repeat myself to yet another bad reader.

As for the Cathar heresy, I haven't read about it. I tend to stick to what I know.

[Grogsmash]

Read what I've written on that through the thread. I'm tired of SDM not bothering, I don't want to repeat myself to yet another bad reader.

As for the Cathar heresy, I haven't read about it. I tend to stick to what I know.

Sorry, I'm not going to read through your bad posts again. Please stop implying that Galileo saying something bad about the pope partially excuses his trial for heresy and his punishments. It is vile.

[Sci-2]

Peeking Behind the Icons

After you put on your helmet, you find yourself on a sandy beach with nine other players dressed not in the ugly high-tech bodysuits you saw just a moment ago, but in flattering bathing suits. You’re surrounded by palms trees and blue skies, with light puffy clouds. You hear the soft screeching of gulls, and the gentle pounding of surf. You see an off-white volleyball lying before you on the sand, and a volleyball net already set up...

Then you serve and the fun begins. You and the others are soon completely absorbed as you dig, set, feint, and spike with abandon. This goes on for a few wonderful minutes.

Then, suddenly, you are plagued with philosophical worries about the game you’re now playing. Between points, and in lulls in the action, question after question comes to mind. The first is this:

Are we all seeing and playing with the same volleyball?

But what is your relational brain? Does it resemble your phenomenal brain? There’s no reason to suppose it does. In fact, as we saw with the volleyball, there’s no reason to suppose that the nature of the phenomenal brain in any way constrains the nature of the relational brain. Your phenomenal brain is simply a graphical interface that allows you to interact with your relational brain, whatever that relational brain might be. And all that’s required of a graphical interface is that it be systematically related to what it represents. The relation can be as arbitrary as you wish, as long as it’s systematic. The trash can icon on your computer screen is a graphical interface to software which can erase files on your computer disk. The trash can icon is systematically related to that erasing software, but the relation is arbitrary: the trash can icon doesn’t resemble the erasing software in any way. It could be any color or shape you wish and still successfully do the job of letting you interact with the erasing software. It could be a pig icon or a toilette icon instead of a trash can icon. All that matters is the systematic connection.

[Rorshach]

Sorry, I'm not going to read through your bad posts again. Please stop implying that Galileo saying something bad about the pope partially excuses his trial for heresy and his punishments. It is vile.

If you'd bothered, you'd find I didn't. But just like SDM, you hide your historical ignorance behind a veil of moral outrage. Go read.

[SomeDeadMan]

Then you put up something I suspect you lifted from Hans Küng about Copernicus not publishing because of the Index and fear of burning. At this point I'd like you to point to actual burnings of scientists (well, proto-scientists), and also to point out that the Galileo project, which you link, points out that the Index was created at the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Copernicus died in 1543. So, for Küng to be correct, Copernicus needed to be clairvoyant. I suspect you don't share that view.

It would seem reasonable to assume I'm taking from Küng's work, since it's one of my sources.

However, it's pure obfuscation again. I don't need to point to any burning of any proto-scientists, because the charge wasn't one of 'scientist', it was of heretic. And one could be charged of heresy for contradicting the Papacy.

I think I perhaps gave you too much credit when I called you knowledgable. Either that, or you are deliberately misrepresenting to the readers of your post. It is true that the Index did not come into play, formally, until after Copernicus' death, but the principle and implementation was very much there. The Fifth Lateran Council in 1515 under Pope Julius II decreed that a book needs permission from a Bishop before printing. Küng is wrong to say Index, but censorship, and papal censorship at that, exists.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09018b.htm

Except it's not. You draw up a picture of Inquisition torture for some two paragraphs, without linking it to Galileo. You should, otherwise you create a misleading impression that, indeed, torture was at stake. However, you have not shown (nor has anyone else) that this was the case. Why? Because it wasn't.

If in the future you find yourself confused as to my point, you would be better suited to asking for clarification before using it to make a point. I'm sure there's a term for that.

I paint such a vivid picture of in the Inquisition because it's the milieu in which these scientists existed. I very specifically confront Galileo's inquisition, in which yes, torture was indeed at stake according to every account I have ever read.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IKW-4LyQeHYC&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231&dq=was+galileo+threatened+with+torture&source=bl&ots=GijdA5X57l&sig=3iQnaHybehcH3g4gkSA8y-c3vP8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WrfOU924G-jY7Aagg4DwBA&ved=0CGwQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=torture&f=false

The Inquisitor's manual allowed for it, why would it be off the table? I've never seen it suggested, other than by Catholic apologists, that torture was not on the table.

http://rarebooks.library.nd.edu/digital/inquisition/collections/RBSC-INQ:COLLECTION/essays/RBSC-INQ:ESSAY_InquisitorialManuals?genre_form_id=RBSC-INQ%3AInquisitorial_manuals

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jviElHq-kEcC&pg=PA312&dq=galileo+threat+of+torture&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_7jOU9u1JpGy7Abt5oH4Cw&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=galileo%20threat%20of%20torture&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9D2Tf8k06N0C&pg=PA15&dq=galileo+threat+of+torture&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_7jOU9u1JpGy7Abt5oH4Cw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=galileo%20threat%20of%20torture&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=k7D1CXFBl2gC&pg=PA38&dq=galileo+threat+of+torture&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_7jOU9u1JpGy7Abt5oH4Cw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=galileo%20threat%20of%20torture&f=false

I think you've run out of ways to whitewash the inquisition.

Here you err again. Galileo was placed on the Index. In 1634. Which means, of course that you're third to last sentence here is false. And how is it irresponsible for Bellarmie to ask for proof of a theory before it is taught as fact? His first paragraph says he's glad is taught as hypothesis.. why would he write that, if he vehemently opposed the idea with all his being? Your interpretation is .. lacking.

I had debated my phrasing there upon rereading it several times. I was concerned you'd pull that. To be clear, I don't concede what he states here. They did indeed ban Galileo in 1634, but they banned Copernicus in 1616, and anything which supported Copernican theory:

This Holy Congregation has also learned about the spreading and acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, which is also taught by Nicholaus Copernicus's On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres and by Diego de Zuniga'sOn Job. This may be seen from a certain letter published by a certain Carmelite Father, whose title is Letter of the Reverend Father Paolo Foscarini, on the Pythagorean and Copernican Opinion of the Earth's Motion and Sun's Rest and on the New Pythagorean World System (Naples: Lazzaro Scoriggio, 1615), in which the said Father tries to show that the above-mentioned doctrine of the sun's rest at the center of the world and the earth's motion is consonant with the truth and does not contradict Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that this opinion may not creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) and Diego de Zuniga (On Job) be suspended until corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini be completely prohibited and condemned; and that all other books which teach the same be likewise prohibited, according to whether with the present decree it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them respectively. In witness thereof, this decree has been signed by the hand and stamped with the seal of the Most Illustrious and Reverend Lord Cardinal of St. Cecilia, Bishop of Albano, on 5 March 1616.

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~allch001/galileo/library/1616docs.htm

I seriously, seriously overestimated either your knowledge or your integrity. To be honest, if the sheepish theist in here wasn't clinging to your argument, I'd have dismissed you by now. You've assumed a position of arrogance, without having earned it. You've provided little argument, and just really in the form of criticism or links to other people's, and you've attempted to whitewash the inquisition with no standing to do so.

But we're making progress. You have now accepted that they banned Galileo's work. One of my only two points. Now you just need to accept this:

""We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo... have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world.”"

And we can be done here.

I'd hate to be religious.

Your point regarding the hack job comment has already been taken care of by the earlier points in this post, but if you need any more confirmation, how about the fact the original Revolutions remained banned? Duh.

Because Galileo played according to plan and presented a mathematical hypothesis?

This is what's odious about your argument. You seem to be asserting that if he offended the Pope or if he didn't stick to just a mathematical hypothesis, then he deserved what he got. I think it's putrid.

You can no longer get away with dismissive comments, well, I'd suggest. If your religious friend could agree with this comment, I'd be very grateful, because it'd give me leave to stop responding to your, progressively worse, responses.

[Liffguard]

that may make a nice fantasy setting, wherein brave hero must battle to the death red herrings, strawpersons, dead horses, true scotsmen, two-horned monsters, evil circles, cherrypickers, samuel johnson, and hitler.

It already exists, kind of.

Dungeons & Discourse.

Advanced Dungeons & Discourse.