Creationists in Museums. Two tier America ?

[tomndebb]

The “world of science” reference is to the Wikipedia article.

I’ve never read anywhere that Galileo wanted to “rework scripture”, though he certainly took umbrage with the notion that he could not and should not offer his own oppinion on how it ought to be interpreted.

That is what I intended to say. The first time that Galileo fell afoul of members of the church was when a Dominican decided that his Letter to Castelli included a new interpretation of Scripture. Following the Reformation, the Church was pretty paranoid about anyone doing any personal interpretation. However, prior to that, Galileo had had numerous exchanges with several churchmen in Rome, sharing information regarding the construction of telescopes and speculating on the ideas of Copernicus. If the church had already decided to condemn (or even eschew) Copernican thought with the Giordano affair, fifteen years earlier, then it is hard to see how they were willing to entertain it when Galileo came to them, sharing the same ideas. (Giordano did have one Copernican connection: in addition to his docetism, Giordano posited an infinite universe containing infinite worlds, leading to a crisis in thought regarding the special nature of humanity. However, while his inifinite universe notion borrowed some thoughts from Copernicus and some from Plato, Copernicus had explicitly denied that particular possibility in his work.) If the Inquisition was clearly looking to condemn the Copernican model, then why did they declare that Galileo’s Letter to Castelli contained no error on two separate occasions (even though Father Lorini had actually tampered with the text to place it further outside orthodoxy before he submitted it to the Inquisition for the second time)? In fact, Galileo appears to have been in no danger of being tried by the Inquisition until, following their second refusal to condemn the Letter to Castelli, Galileo actually came to Rome to demand that he be allowed to promote his work.

There’s a massive fiction being promoted if what you say is correct, and yet Bellarmino, as Sobel notes, was himself of the oppinion that Copernicus was a heretic.

Interestingly, I have never encountered any previous claim that Bellarmine expressed any view that Galileo was a heretic or that his works were heretical.
Bellarmine clearly believed in the Ptolemaic model and he did tell Galileo to put up or shut up. But he also provided the middle road of suggesting that Galileo put forth the heliocentric theory as a “working hypothesis” until such time as Galileo could provide proof. (The proofs that Galileo attempted when brought to trial were actually in error.)
Is there a document that shows Bellarmine expressing the idea that either Galileo or his works were heretical?

As to the idea that the church would have suppressed challenge, I would agree, but then, the church, as a body, does not appear to have even considered the Copernican theory a challenge until Galileo made it so. I am not defending the ultimate actions of the church; I am pointing out that claims that the church initiated actions against Giordano because of his science have nothing more than 18th century rumors to support them–with 17th century history providing contrary evidence–and that it is clear that the church did not move against Galileo’s science until he made it a point to challenge the church.

Massive fiction? That is not outside the realm of possibility, although I would say, at this point, that it is more a matter of people simply using particular filters when viewing history, filters created in some part by the literary wars that followed the Reformation. Just as many Catholic works repeated lies about Luther’s personal life well into the 20th century, so many Protestant works were created that shaped later (mis)understandings of the actions of the RCC. A number of legends surrounding the Galileo trial originated in the 18th century, including the apocryphal “Eppur si muove” quotation.

I agree that the church screwed up. I don’t think the church had any business burning heretics for theological reasons and they certainly had no business suppressing the publication of works of which they disapproved or trying to dictate how science was examined.

However, there is simply no evidence that the church considered the Copernican theory to actually be a threat until Galileo made it an issue. For that matter, Paul Newall in his long essay defending Galileo, The Galileo Affair, provides numerous quotations between 1610 and 1640 from nearly all the prominent players in the church (aside from Galileo’s particular enemies) in which each of them makes a point of noting that they had no intention of condemning Copernicanism.

[Loopydude]

@tomndebb

Massive fiction? That is not outside the realm of possibility, although I would say, at this point, that it is more a matter of people simply using particular filters when viewing history, filters created in some part by the literary wars that followed the Reformation. Just as many Catholic works repeated lies about Luther’s personal life well into the 20th century, so many Protestant works were created that shaped later (mis)understandings of the actions of the RCC. A number of legends surrounding the Galileo trial originated in the 18th century, including the apocryphal “Eppur si muove” quotation.

Well, 'tis true enough about the potential for fiction, and we all have our own filters, admittedly. The most absurd thing about that fictional quote is it quite possibly would have gotten Galileo a death sentance.

At any rate, since learning about Bruno a few years ago, I’ve found it curious the “world of science” would want to claim him as a martyr to “science”, because the guy was all over the map (literally and figuratively), and distinguished himself, I think, most successfully as a professional iconoclast. I think I read somewhere that Galileo himself didn’t think much of his ideas, theoretical or theological. Perhaps that’s part of the reason Galileo had less initial concern for his own wellbeing than a Bruno should have had, for he saw himself, after all, as a devoted member of the Church.

If I have a filter, it’s that both the Church and Galileo were diminished by the conflict and the sense of urgency it caused. I think it’s clear Galileo really was afraid that the Church, if it promoted a particular read of some passages in the Bible, would indeed commit a heresy itself, because Scripture cannot contradict truth, and Tychonic geocentrism was a falsehood. I do not think, to this day, despite the lack of definitive proof for Copernican heliocentrism, that Galileo used poor judgement in his support for the accuracy of the Copernican model, because the Tychonic model was an ugly extravagance of a most unphysical order. A reformation-shocked Church was clearly in no mood to be lectured on theology by an acerbic and impertinant philosopher, but their willingness, when push came to shove, to back geocentrism was no more evidentially supported than Galileo’s theory of the tides.

And, oh, that rotten theory of the tides. Would Galileo have literally staked his life on it if he did not feel some dire urgency? Was it all his undeniably prodigeous ego driving him to peril? If not, what else was driving him, then? If there were not some danger of the Church promoting what Galileo interpreted as a heresy, why did he push the conflict? The opening salvos in the battle clearly indicate Galileo felt the need, however audacious, to save the Church from some facet of itself (which unfortunately was only made worse through the conflict). If heliocentrism was not a bone of contention, then Galileo’s actions do indeed seem almost completely irrational and pig-headed. I guess, then, perhaps the biggest filter one might apply to what facts we can glean from the sad story is to what degree Galileo was motivated by reckless pride or a sense of spiritual peril. I think it was both. And hence, I think Galileo must have recognized that a peril existed. Perhaps Bruno knew it too.