Err, make that GG (Galilio), not BB (King?? 
–
peas on earth
I wish I could be more specific as to the source, but in one of Pratchett’s Discworld novels he described a character as the type of person who would stand on a hilltop during a thunderstorm wearing copper armor and shout “All gods are bastards!” Interesting image…
–Let me see if I’ve got this straight. Galileo got into trouble with the RCC not for his scientific work, but for expressing personal theological opinions in public? Sure makes me feel better!
–Alan Q
If I understand correctly, he got in trouble, not for simply expressing his beliefs, but for repeatedly trying to get the Pope to issue a proclamation (or whatever it is that Popes issue) stating that Galileo had the truth of it, and everyone else had been wrong all this time.
Galileo was essentially trying to use the Pope to force his own newfound theology on every Catholic in the world.
tomndebb:
What you quoted seems in line with what I have been taught. It seems tho that the only “theological conclusion” Galileo made was that heliocentricity was fact and not just theory. I guess I was expecting something more. That doesn’t seem like much of a theological speculation. The quotes you gave suggest that Galileo was a political jerk about the whole issue. I hadn’t heard Galileo described in this way before, but it is certainly believable. It is generally recognized that Newton was a colossal a-hole, but that hasn’t diminished the reverance for him in physics.
While you probably mean this in the sense that the church recognized the heliocentric theory as being mathematically accurate in making predictions of planetary motions, it sounded to me like you were saying that the church regarded the heliocentric theory as true. It seems that they regarded it as a valid theory, but didn’t really want to deal with the issue of the physical truth of it yet.
It seems that the micro-summary I heard many years ago by James Burke from the show The Day the Universe Changed is essentially correct. James Burke described the church as saying “Look, we know that what you are saying is right, but you need to give us time to feed it out to the masses slowly.” And Galileo got in trouble for not going along with this.
Going off on a tangent here, but I have a question. Why would anyone expect that a religious authority should make a statement concerning science? I mean, whatever the Pope has to say about theology is by definition true and accurate (at least to members of the Catholic Church) but why should he make any kind of statement about the natural world? Science is constantly refining its models of objective reality, so any theory the Pope might give sanction to might very well be overturned in the next issue of Nature.
I wouldn’t expect Hawkins to have an authoritative answer on morality, why expect the Pontiff to have an authoritative answer for physics or biology?
DrFidelus:
BTW, that’s Hawking 
It certainly seems that perporting scientific truth based on religious faith is dangerous. In this day and age, when the frontiers of science are rather esoteric and mostly focused on areas far removed from the everyday human experience, it seems that the theologian would have plenty of room to manuver without getting in the face of science.
Sorry UDD, my cyber secretary is on vacation so I have to make all my typos myself.
Personally, I think it is quite enough for a religious leader to officially state that his flock can investigate natural causes for natural phenomena. I don’t expect anything further, as “Science” and “Faith” are non-overlapping magisteriums. Its those superstitious folk who don’t realize this who scare me…
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
“You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason.”
But the ultimate point is, one I have been trying to make since the second post of this thread, that science and religion operate in seperate spheres of influence. It has never been the object of science to disprove theological matters, and no religion denies scientific principles based on empirical evidence. As was so throughly displayed in the Galileo issue, the only time the church gets involved is when a person ATTEMPTS to use science to disprove religion, but since this is both unfaithful to science and religion, it is far from the norm.
So you see, even IF there are scientists who are faithful to their religion, or even if the Vatican uses lightning rods (which apparently it does) there is no apparent heresy or irony since a) Lightning bolts are not a sign of God’s fury and b) there is no contradiction involved in being a devoutly religious scientist (of which I have known dozens)
Jason R Remy
“And it could be safely said that at that moment, in the whole of India, no one, absolutely no one, was f^(king a goat.”
– John Irving A Son of the Circus (1994)
UDD,
I’m going to retract my statement about Galileo’s theological point. I’m probably suffering from olds-heimers or something. I not only cannot find the site where I thought it had been explained, I can’t find any reference to anything more specific than the site that I did provide. While my memory continues to insist that there was another point, I don’t want anyone actually thinking that there was more to the issue, simply because I once claimed there was.
I think your summary is basically correct. As to the Truth of the heliocentric theory, it should be noted that Galileo was basically in a position of a person who advocated a theory of continental drift in 1950. The concept was out there, but there was no understanding of a mechanism to make it work (plate tectonics being almost 20 years in the future) and no genuine need to accept it. A person, in 1950, who called opponents to the idea of continental drift fools might have been justified in his theories by later developments, but he would have been totally unjustified in scorning his opponents, since he had no real proof for his theories. Galileo, lacking a stellar parallax and depending on his silly “revolving earth causes tides” argument may have been ultimately proven right, but there was no reason why his contemporaries had to accept his pronouncements.
Jayron32,
While I appreciate what you are trying to say, I think that
may be a bit of an overstatement (otherwise why do we have to keep going to court to keep Creationism out of our schools?).
Tom~
kalt posted:
<sigh>
It seems you’re not going to leave this thread until you’re able to get in an insult about people of faith.
Sure, there are Christians who are hypocrites and jerks. But there are agnostics and atheists who are also hyporcrites and jerks. What’s your point?
So, you’ve taken some public jerks, notice that they are Christians/Baptists, and make the claim that religion must include hatred of other denominations or religions in order to work.
Well, you probably know the fallacy you’re making – overgeneralization. You know what that is, it’s the heart of stereotypes and prejudice. Take the characteristic of a few members of a group, and assume it’s a characteristic of all the members. And to make your point, you try to find the most extreme and offensive samples in order to stir up people’s ire and wrath and to blind them to the bigotry you’re trying to sell.
So, let me educate you. I know some loving Baptists who don’t condemn non-Baptists to hell.
The RCC, which is the largest Christian denomination, has as part of its documents from Vatican Council II a declaration on how it views other denominations and religions. And guess what, no blanket condemnation. Other Christians are called “brothers [sic] in Christ.” The Jews are still God’s chosen people and their covenant is still valid. The Muslims are fellow monotheists who worship the same God. Pagans of good will are seeking God in nature and human experience and depend on the mercy of God for salvation (which all people do, even Christians).
And so, here is an example of a religion which is not anti-intellectual, not anti-science, and not full of hatred or condemnation for non-Catholics. The RCC is hardly falling apart as you have presumed it should.
The rest of “Love your neighbors” is not “unless he [sic] is of a different faith”, it is “and love your enemies and pray for your persecutors and do good for those who can not pay you back.” And there are Christians of all denomination who live by this.
Peace.
[And before anyone suggests that Christian love means silent suffering, Jesus OK’d speaking up – loudly and forcefully if necessary – he did it himself. Just as long it’s done non-violently and with love.]
Dang! That was fun. As an apolitical,apathetic, agnostic,ex-Catholic,ex-biology major I could just stand outside and watch.
Just one thing bothered me,Kalt seems to have dropped out, but in case he reads this;
you judge all of a group by its most fanatical,outspoken, even fringe members. Well i am a Texan too and I sure don’t think you represent me or my way of thinking. I don’t just mean WHAT I think but the WAY I think.
Let’s do this again some time,but over in some other forum.
Signitorily yours, Mr John
" Pardon me while I have a strange interlude."-Marx
ARROW? Officer, I didn’t even see any Indians