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

[Rorshach]

Nice to see that you admit Kepler wasn't on the list with his book about heliosentrism. That sort of honesty is refreshing.

/sarcasm.

Secondly, you haven't really read your document. It discusses how the wording was, and points out that the document was probably worded as it was because science (observation etc) wasn't on Galileo's side. Indeed, as it says, the "Copernicans could not argue with the data. They resorted to justifying the absurdly large stars in their system by appealing to Divine Majesty and Omnipotence: an infinitely powerful God could easily make such giant stars."

Score one for science, I guess.

And no, I don't want an agrument by proxy because you're right. I'm pointing you to places where you can learn stuff. Also, I've asked you to look up, amongst other things, why they used "formally heretic". You haven't answered ("absurd in philosophy" basically means "unsupported by evidence" here, fyi).

The fact that you can't get this into your head is baffling. Perhaps you like the story. Perhaps you've not read enough. Perhaps (as I like to stick to you) you're a blind believer in the Conflict Thesis. But history and historians are not on your side of the argument, and you haven't really shown that they are. You have linked a document discussing the punctation of the original statement. A discussion follows that point out that data and science didn't support Galileo at the time. This is hardly news. It's standard history.

Galileo was a smart guy, but on heliosentrism he was wrong. He couldn't prove it, and he didn't get the motion right (he went for the Copernican perfect circles, whereas Kepler in his non-banned book from 1609 got it right with ellipces).

So keep believing you've made an argument. Just don't look closely - that would be embarrassing.

[Rorshach]

It was when he presented it as scientific fact (something we know now, but was not properly provable at the time) that he got into trouble (also, insulting, although perhaps not intentionally, the Pope) that he got in trouble.

Galileo wasn't very astute when writing Dialogo. In terms of making friends, that is.

He knew he had enemies as well as supporters in the Vatican, but only Galileo can tell us why he thought that he should put the pope's view into the mouth of a charachter named Simplicio..

ETA: Here's a link to a lengthy and detailed (overly so, I suspect), but at times entertaining account on the events surronding heliocetrism and Galileo.

[SomeDeadMan]

Haha. This is breathtaking.

And no, the house arrest and book burning don't become understandable, but nothing in the supposed rebuttals you've posted so far in any way contradicts the claim in Rorshach's original link that all that took place because he wrote a book claiming that heliocentrism was undeniably the superior theory when that was not true at the time and that he insulted the Pope in so doing.

Man. I don't know what else I can say to you. They placed the book on the list of books banned because they were damaging to the faith. They charged him with heresy. And he was convicted of such. The second half of the quote you've bizarrely dissected, from the report, is such: "and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."

Why did you cut the part of the quote out, Polish, which declares that they were finding Galileo guilty of heresy because he contradicted the Holy Scripture?

materials most easily available does nothing but back up the idea that while yes, the Church wasresistant to the idea that the solar system was heliocentric, it was not opposed to it being discussed and used hypothetically, and open to being

proved wrong.

What, is that some kind of joke? The Church was... resistant?

Rorshach's original link that all that took place because he wrote a book claiming that heliocentrism was undeniably the superior theory when that was not true at the time and that he insulted the Pope in so doing.

That IS my point. He wrote a back asserting that he had a solid theory, and they refused it. Anyway, you seemed quite taken by the minority view Rorshach provided you, so here, I'll give you an entire bibliography to look up, which supports me:

http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/bibliography.html

[SomeDeadMan]

Rorshach,

I'm not going to quote your post, because it's just you jumping up and down reasserting that you've won the argument - excusing your lack of making any actual argument by saying you've linked me to other sources so I can 'learn'. Thanks, guru.

I'll finally restate that Galileo Galilee was found guilty of heresy by the Church, and his work on heliocentrism was banned and suppressed. These have been my two points from the beginning until now. Neither of these assertions have been proven to be inaccurate or false.

[Rorshach]

That IS my point. He wrote a back asserting that he had a solid theory, and they refused it. Anyway, you seemed quite taken by the minority view Rorshach provided you, so here, I'll give you an entire bibliography to look up, which supports me:

http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/bibliography.html

That's an assertion. It's false, I can say without having read much there (because Kepler's work are in there, translated, and his heliosentrism was correct, whereas Galileo's was wrong). Also, note that none of that scholarship is newer than 1994 - but that's a digression - you haven't read it, and your claim is not correct..

But I do love that you phrase it like you do.. did he have a solid theory? What evidence did he bring to bear? And did he present it as theory? And what, pray tell, is meant by "formally"?

ETA: I still want you to explain why Astronomia Nova from 1609 wasn't banned.

[Grogsmash]

Well, can't say I expected this thread to turn into a defense of the Galileo heresy charge heh. What century is this again?

[SomeDeadMan]

That's an assertion. It's false, I can say without having read much there (because Kepler's work are in there, translated, and his heliosentrism was correct, whereas Galileo's was wrong). Also, note that none of that scholarship is newer than 1994 - but that's a digression - you haven't read it, and your claim is not correct..

I'll be very clear: when I call his theory solid, I meant only that he was right. The intricacies of his theory I'm not at all up on, nor have I ever read. That's pretty tangential to the point I was making, which was this: he presented a theory, that was right, but they didn't like it. They decided he was a heretic.

They convicted him of heresy, they banned him. Do you dispute that? My entire argument, and everything I have given has been in support of this. Do you dispute that?

Well, can't say I expected this thread to turn into a defense of the Galileo heresy charge heh. What century is this again?

Right? I'm honestly speechless that there is a controversy here.

[polishgenius]

Well, can't say I expected this thread to turn into a defense of the Galileo heresy charge heh. What century is this again?

The defence isn't of the heresy charge. Obviously. It's an argument against the notion that the Church has always been completely closed to scientific progress. Yes, Galileo was charged with heresy and banned. No, the charge of heresy did not stop heliocentrism being studied, and eventually accepted, by scholars of the Church and elsewhere. Which is what SDM is desperately trying to imply.

This whole thing stemmed from SDM stating that the Catholic church has always been absolutist in its beliefs and not open to being proven wrong, and yet he's now trying to shift the parameters of the argument to purely 'was Galileo convicted of heresy or not' to cover the fact that even right in the midst of that happening, high-level players in the Church were openly stating that if actual proof was given, they'd examine their own teachings and change them if necessary. And that a Pope was asking Galileo to write about heliocentrism even after the first ruling.

[Rorshach]

I'll be very clear: when I call his theory solid, I meant only that he was right. The intricacies of his theory I'm not at all up on, nor have I ever read. That's pretty tangential to the point I was making, which was this: he presented a theory, that was right, but they didn't like it. They decided he was a heretic.

They convicted him of heresy, they banned him. Do you dispute that? My entire argument, and everything I have given has been in support of this. Do you dispute that?

If you know so little, why do you claim such knowledge? He was, btw, not right. He was wrong insofar that his theory claimed the earth orbited the sun in perfect circles, while the unbanned Kepler seven years previously had presented it as ellipces. As for science, he didn't have any evidence to support him. He presented the tides as evidence of heliosentrism, something we know is wrong.

And, if you had read through your Galileo site, you would find that the 1616 sqabble, which you refer to, didn't see Galileo judged or banned. As it says, "None of Galileo's books were placed on the Index at this time". Dialogo was indeed banned, but that was in 1634. That was also when Galileo was placed under house arrest.

In short, read up. You know nothing here - I know more. Considering your statement above, you have no basis for any of your claims (except, if you want to retcon them to mean 1634 instead of 1616 - but then you'd need a new source, as you have presented 1616 material.

[Rorshach]

And that a Pope was asking Galileo to write about heliocentrism even after the first ruling.

That pope, remember, was a friend of Galileo.

Until he was, wittingly or unwittingly, called a simpleton by that charming fellow. Also, I believe he became pope in 1625. In 1616, he was part of the process (though, I believe, he argued Galileo's side).

[Grogsmash]

This whole thing stemmed from SDM stating that the Catholic church has always been absolutist in its beliefs and not open to being proven wrong

So are you really arguing that the Catholic church has been open to proving itself wrong? That the Galileo heresy trial wasn't an example of the Catholic church clamping down on someone who disagreed with them?

Anyway, for the atheists (or agnostics) out there, what books were influential in your being comfortable with your loss of faith? I lost my faith around 7th grade and was pretty horrified by it. I was ashamed that i couldn't believe, when everyone that I had ever met had faith. I tried reading the Bible over and over again, to no avail. The idea of being an atheist or thinking that maybe I wasn't completely wrong didn't occur to me, because not believing was just bad.

It didn't change until, due to some question that I can't recall now, my 7th grade science teacher responded by giving me Atheism: The Case Against God. Not simply letting me read it, but actually giving it to me. It was an eye-opening experience for me. That I wasn't alone in my doubts. Not sure how it would hold up anymore, haven't read it in close to 20 years, but it finally made me not constantly doubt my lack of faith. That in fact, the burden of proof was on others.

[SomeDeadMan]

If you know so little, why do you claim such knowledge? He was, btw, not right. He was wrong insofar that his theory claimed the earth orbited the sun in perfect circles, while the unbanned Kepler seven years previously had presented it as ellipces. As for science, he didn't have any evidence to support him. He presented the tides as evidence of heliosentrism, something we know is wrong.

And, if you had read through your Galileo site, you would find that the 1616 sqabble, which you refer to, didn't see Galileo judged or banned. As it says, "None of Galileo's books were placed on the Index at this time". Dialogo was indeed banned, but that was in 1634. That was also when Galileo was placed under house arrest.

In short, read up. You know nothing here - I know more. Considering your statement above, you have no basis for any of your claims (except, if you want to retcon them to mean 1634 instead of 1616 - but then you'd need a new source, as you have presented 1616 material.

Man, you are dull. Not knowing the intricacies of Galileo's theory is entirely irrelevant to my points and my arguments. My point, as I have made repeatedly, and which you have done everything you could to obfuscate, is that Galileo was found guilty of heresy and his work banned. Yes or no? It really is that simple.

Polish says I have a hidden agenda, or something. That I'm trying to prove the Church has absolutist views which it resists changing. It's not a hidden agenda.

Galileo was banned and called a heretic by your Church. Bellarmine, who Polish presents as if the hero of the piece, was also unwilling to allow Galileo to publish his works unless he could definitively prove it - effectively attempting to shut it down.

What I present to you is this:

"I have not held the Copernican system since I was ordered to abandon it [referring to his censure in 1616]. But I am in your hands. Do with me what you will. For some time before the determination of the Holy Office, and before I received the command [in 1616], I had been indifferent as to the two opinions of Ptolemy and Copernicus, and had held that both were disputable and that both could be true in nature. But after being assured by the prudence of my superiors, all my doubts ceased, and I held, as I now hold, the theory of Ptolemy as true, that is the earth does not, and that the sun does move."

The coerced lie to save himself. Disgusting. Backward, anti-science barbarians.

Galileo was right in the end. The Earth revolves around the sun. Your Church tried to quash his argument, and they did so by calling him a heretic and banning his book. No amount of jumping up and down and putting your fingers in your ears is going to change that.

Shall we move on to defending the crusades next?

[Rorshach]

Ignoramus. That sums you up.

Firstly, it's not my Church. That's you again, drawing conclusions unwarranted. For your information, while I am a Christian, I am Lutheran and as such reflexively sceptical of the Catholic church.

Secondly, I've rarely had the misfortune to find someone so utterly uncapable of accepting his own limitations. Given that you know next to nothing about the subject matter, post primary sources that are not about what you claim. Your document, as evicenced by the Galileo project link, doesn't end in either a ban of Galileo's writings. Neither was it the source of his house arrest. Instead, it was a conclusion to a lengthy argument where Galileo wanted to present his (faulty) heliocentrism as fact, whereas the Church wanted to (sensibly) present it as theory.

Bellarmie is relatively uninteresting in this episode, apart from his pointing out that Scripture wasn't neccecarily literally interpreted (something you started off claiming), but in order for the Church to change it's interpretation proof was required. Proof was something Galileo didn't have.

Basically, it's like this: I claim that .. dunno .. Uranus is inhabited by intelligent creatures. You point out that we don't know that, and for me to present it as fact is .. strange. I throw a hissy fit and continue my claim. Some 100 years from now, we can prove my point, even though I can't today. Should we look at you as an idiot who didn't see it 100 years prior? Because that's basically your positon.

You have yet to respond to why Kepler wasn't placed on the banned list for his heliocentrism, and you have in no way presented evidence that people were stopping researching it. Both parts is because the evidence goes against you.

You are, contrary to your own self image, no rational person. You're a true believer, and as a person with a master's degree in history i abhorr people like you - confident, all-knowing and utterly clueless. Call me dull? Sure, truth is dull. Truth is also an unknown country to you here.

[polishgenius]

SDM, I'd like to clarify that I'm not suggesting that your agenda is in any way hidden.

So are you really arguing that the Catholic church has been open to proving itself wrong? That the Galileo heresy trial wasn't an example of the Catholic church clamping down on someone who disagreed with them?

The first question is obviously yes, I am arguing that. Not always as open as it should be, but it obviously has. There was a time when the Church was in fact the foremost curator of science and learning in the Western world. SDM is trying to present as fact the idea that the church hates science and progress and always had, and it's just not true. In the instance of Galileo, it was too stringent for my tastes in upholding its favoured view, but it never banned the research of views that opposed it.

The second question- no, I'm not arguing that, and I wouldn't agree with the punishment whatever the reason for it. I am, however, arguing that as far as I can see from a quick glance around, it seems pretty certain among actual historians that he wasn't banned purely because science bad.

So, for clarity: I'm not saying the Church was right in censoring Galileo. However its wrong reasons for doing so weren't the same wrong reasons that SDM is presenting and that are commonly believed.

[SomeDeadMan]

Basically, it's like this: I claim that .. dunno .. Uranus is inhabited by intelligent creatures. You point out that we don't know that, and for me to present it as fact is .. strange. I throw a hissy fit and continue my claim. Some 100 years from now, we can prove my point, even though I can't today. Should we look at you as an idiot who didn't see it 100 years prior? Because that's basically your positon.

It's just this callous disregard of a man being convicted of heresy which you've yet to accept, or his works being banned, which you've yet to accept, that I can't quite get over. It's like you're some sort of android, programmed to avoid admitting the two points I've made since the beginning of this, whilst also avoiding denying them. Haha. I mean the perverse way you've presented this is embarrassing.

Galileo didn't throw a strop n' they weren't like 'Lol, k, bro, sure thing'. They were like 'Mother fucker we will burn you. WE WILL BURN YOU.' Before you jump all over that, I'm not being literal. They blocked him, they stopped him publishing in order to stop the theory developing. They convicted him of heresy when he refused. You are defending that with such a stupid analogy.

You are, contrary to your own self image, no rational person. You're a true believer, and as a person with a master's degree in history i abhorr people like you - confident, all-knowing and utterly clueless. Call me dull? Sure, truth is dull. Truth is also an unknown country to you here.

And you're a tiresome automaton. Ploughing away in your ardent defence of an institution which, at the time, was indefensible. But, even although it's not your Church (when I said that, I was referring to the subject of your defence, not your religion, I don't give a fuck what your religion is - you've still failed to impress here, because you've simply refused entirely to confront the only two arguments I make), you defend it with a fundamentalist's zeal.

You have yet to respond to why Kepler wasn't placed on the banned list for his heliocentrism, and you have in no way presented evidence that people were stopping researching it. Both parts is because the evidence goes against you.

So I'm clear in this: your suggestion is that Kepler's theory was right, and that's why the Church called Galileo a heretic - for science? Is that the point you're getting at here? Because if not, I'm somewhat confused as to what you're going for with this one.

Neither was it the source of his house arrest. Instead, it was a conclusion to a lengthy argument where Galileo wanted to present his (faulty) heliocentrism as fact, whereas the Church wanted to (sensibly) present it as theory.

Hahaha. How does that change anything? They still locked him away for heresy, and stuck his book on their vile index. Exactly how do you refute that with this? You're accepting it.

Call me dull? Sure, truth is dull. Truth is also an unknown country to you here.

Haha, I love that. I call you dull, and you tell me this equates to me calling the truth dull. 'Cause you know, you = the one truth. I better be careful, before I get an interdict on me and an order of house arrest.

The second question- no, I'm not arguing that, and I wouldn't agree with the punishment whatever the reason for it. I am, however, arguing that as far as I can see from a quick glance around, it seems pretty certain among actual historians that he wasn't banned purely because science bad.

Polish,

You and Rorshach seem to be in disagreement here. Perhaps you can tell us all why the Church declared him a heretic and banned his book.

And also, you seem to accidentally make a confession here. You say he wasn't banned purely because 'science bad'. Wouldn't that suggest you believe the Church partly called him a heretic and banned his book because, as you put it, 'science bad'?

[Rorshach]

It's just this callous disregard of a man being convicted of heresy which you've yet to accept, or his works being banned, which you've yet to accept, that I can't quite get over. It's like you're some sort of android, programmed to avoid admitting the two points I've made since the beginning of this, whilst also avoiding denying them. Haha. I mean the perverse way you've presented this is embarrassing.

Let's make it clear: the word you haven't bothered checking up on? Formally? Means "in form" as opposed to "in essence". Basically, it says that to claim his positon as fact is heretical, not that Galileo was heretical. And hey, he continued his life unimpeded for 17 more years, until he decided that insulting a pope was the way to go. So no, he wasn't convicted of heresy per se, he was informed that his argument, in the form he presented it, was heretical. And his books weren't banned at this time, only Dialogo was and that was a different process, still to come. So I notice that your ignorance is holding up.

Galileo didn't throw a strop n' they weren't like 'Lol, k, bro, sure thing'. They were like 'Mother fucker we will burn you. WE WILL BURN YOU.' Before you jump all over that, I'm not being literal. They blocked him, they stopped him publishing in order to stop the theory developing. They convicted him of heresy when he refused. You are defending that with such a stupid analogy.

No, they didn't threaten to burn. That's you extrapolating again. Because, as mentioned, the form of the argument (not the essence, the important part if you will) was deemed to be heretical. So no-one threatened to burn him, he was not removed from any position and his books were not banned. You are still not catching up.

So I'm clear in this: your suggestion is that Kepler's theory was right, and that's why the Church called Galileo a heretic - for science? Is that the point you're getting at here? Because if not, I'm somewhat confused as to what you're going for with this one.

Of course you're wrong. Heck, how could it be any different?

The point is: if heliocentrism was that big a threat that the Church would have to scilence Galileo, they would have done the same to Kepler. Who held heliocentric views, and had presented them at an earlier date. Since Kepler wasn't banned, however, that sort of rules heliocentrism in itself out as the reason Galileo was in trouble. And with trouble, I do not mean "danger".

Hahaha. How does that change anything? They still locked him away for heresy, and stuck his book on their vile index. Exactly how do you refute that with this? You're accepting it.

They did neither. Pay attention, this will be on the test. They did neither.

Now, if you want to move away from the "philosophically absurd; and formally heretic"-document, they did indeed put him in house arrest and ban a book of his, Dialogo, in 1634. However, the above phrase, which you love, was in relation to the 1616 keruffle, and at that point Galileo was neither locked up nor banned.

I do think the Church was too heavy handed in 1634, but given the context (which you ignore, as you are clueless) it's understandable. If you want to learn more, please read a link or two, or ask. I know how skin deep you knowledge is here.

[SomeDeadMan]

Well I'm glad we finally got to the crux of it. The guru has proved that Galileo actually was never convicted of heresy, and he lived a pleasant life, uninterrupted by the Church, except that troublesome year when they were a wee bit heavy handed - although understandably! And it was totally cool anyways, Galileo was just a big drama queen, guyz. Amen.

I think we've both went as far as we can go. I think you're mental, you think me ill-informed. And I'm happy to leave it at that. Because you're mental.

[Rorshach]

Well I'm glad we finally got to the crux of it. The guru has proved that Galileo actually was never convicted of heresy, and he lived a pleasant life, uninterrupted by the Church, except that troublesome year when they were a wee bit heavy handed - although understandably! And it was totally cool anyways, Galileo was just a big drama queen, guyz. Amen.

I think we've both went as far as we can go. I think you're mental, you think me ill-informed. And I'm happy to leave it at that. Because you're mental.

Well, for a rational man, you have shown no insight into the matter, don't know what was proposed, who argued what and when... Since you end sarcastically, arguing indirectly that I'm wrong, why not show it? With, you know, historians, sources etc..? Oh, silly me, because you can't. Because, for all your bluster, you don't know the first thing about the scenery, the era, the philosophy, or, indeed, Galileo. Yes, that's true - you don't know anything about Galileo.

Why were you, a rational being, arguing a point you know fuck all about?

..oh, and I don't think you're ill-informed. You're an ignoramus.

[SomeDeadMan]

Well, for a rational man, you have shown no insight into the matter, don't know what was proposed, who argued what and when... Since you end sarcastically, arguing indirectly that I'm wrong, why not show it? With, you know, historians, sources etc..? Oh, silly me, because you can't. Because, for all your bluster, you don't know the first thing about the scenery, the era, the philosophy, or, indeed, Galileo. Yes, that's true - you don't know anything about Galileo.

Why were you, a rational being, arguing a point you know fuck all about?

..oh, and I don't think you're ill-informed. You're an ignoramus.

I don't know why I'm replying again. I have made my case over and over and over and over and over again. You finally deigned to make a direct response, what, 5 pages deep? I'm tired of it now. I guess I'd just say to anyone: pick up the first mainstream history book you find on this matter. That's my opinion. Because that's all I've ever been arguing. When you started disputing the heresy and the banning of the book - not disputing, equivocating, demonstrating circumlocution, I just gave it up.

It's just so stupid. I've got nothing else to say about this really. People can freely believe what they want. I've made my argument as much as I'm going to make it. You said I confused my dates, but the Galileo quote I used earlier makes it pretty fucking clear I've been referring to the overall matter. You picked up on my 'burn him' comment, even although I said RIGHT AFTER THAT not to take it literally. I was being hyperbolic. And I find the rest of your moans of an equally trivial nature, which I can't be bothered disputing.

In fact, I'll be even clearer, inquisitor. I concede the argument. I bow to your superior knowledge. Galileo was NOT convicted of heresy by the Catholic Church; the problem was simply that he just kept trying to force people into believing his theory, and they wanted to protect the people from being misled by such a charlatan. That was all. He was never ill-treated, I mean they were a bit heavy handed, but it was understandable. What else is there? Oh. It was all Galileo's fault, the house arrest thing. He kept insulting the pope in such an unfair way as to make it impossible not to take action against him. The Holy See is the real victim here.

[Rorshach]

I don't know why I'm replying again. I have made my case over and over and over and over and over again. You finally deigned to make a response, what, 5 pages deep? I'm tired of it now. I guess I'd just say to anyone: pick up the first mainstream history book you find on this matter. That's my opinion.

You missed the part where I pointed out my education? Of course you did, you're an ignoramus. You didn't read the first link I gave? With literary references? From scientists studying this very issue? Of course you didn't, you're an ignoramus.

You have shown to have at best a very shallow grasp of this period, and no bluster can hide the fact. Saying, again and again that you have stated your case when your case isn't supported by anything other than a document you don't understand is stupid. Other sources you have not presented.

I do understand that it's hard to admit you're clueless, but believe me: continue stating that your source-free arguing holds up against the researchers of history of science is indeed worse. If this level of understanding is what underpins your Dawkins reccomendation, then woe on Dawkins.