As the article by Lessl that I already linked to mentions, the case of Giordano Bruno had absolutely nothing to do with his belief in heliocentrism, nor with any of his other scientific beliefs.
And the fact that the church did not officially concede that the earth was not stationary until 1992 is proof that you guys are real sticklers when it comes to proof.
The Church (specifically the Congregation of the Index) didn’t exactly help your case by using language like “…the Pythagorean doctrine—which is false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture—of the motion of the Earth, and the immobility of the Sun…”
Bruno may not have been put to death specifically for his astronomical views, as opposed to his other views–bearing in mind, it wasn’t like he was running around poisoning people or burning down nunneries; he was burned alive for publishing opinions–but, as the decree of the Congregation of the Index shows, the line between “science” and “theology”, and therefore between “scientific error” and “heresy”, was not real well-defined, something which would have to weigh on the mind of anyone seeking to make scientific inquiries into the nature of the Universe.
Speaking as someone who honestly doesn’t know – am I taking it that everyone essentially concedes the factual claims in the OP?
ITR champion, it appears that one major part of your argument is that Galileo “broke his promise” to not speak out on heliocentrism. However, your own OP contradicts this. You stated that in 1616 Galileo agreed to temporarily refrain from speaking on the issue. Then in 1632 he returned to the debate, thus “breaking his promise”. I don’t know in what universe 16 years is not sufficient to cover his promise to temporarily stop talking on the subject.
My emphasis added in bold to your OP:
Well, no. For example, I am strongly disputing the claim from the OP that “The Catholic Church never attempted to eliminate the heliocentric theory for any reason”.
I think this is along the same lines as Kentucky not ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment until 1976 as a goodwill gesture. When they didn’t ratify it they were still bound by it, so they didn’t have to ratify it. When it was obvious it was a mistake but nobody wanted to bring it up because it’d make them look backward and stupid… And hey, for lots of the time before '76 there was enough racism that it might’ve not passed anyway. Eventually they had to due to public pressure.
I’m willing to concede that the situation is more complicated than a straightforward “Church bad! Galileo good!” but that doesn’t make me any more sympathetic to the believers. That Galileo was threatened in any fashion is unacceptable.
D’Souza has been trying to blame everything in the conflict with between Atheist and Christian, as well as as Church and Science on that one stupid book. His entire message consists of 'There was never any conflict and besides you started it!"
ITR Champion, this has to be the lamest attempt ever at trying to prove something in the way of religion (specifically Christianity) versus atheism. Making tiny arguments about obscure topics that entirely evade anything like a real point regardless of which side has more evidence to support it is, as said, plain off lame.
If you want to go for a full on debate of Christianity (and other religions) versus atheism, just go ahead and start a thread on that. Ain’t no one fooled that you’re trying to do anything else. I’d be tremendously surprised if this bit of arcane history is really weighing heavy on your mind.
D’Souza is a fucking crackpot.
Bolding mine.
Can you expand on this? The way I’m reading it, Galileo promised to *temporarily *shut up about heliocentrism and did so until 1632 (16 years) and that was breaking his promise? Seems like 16 years is enough time for controversy to die down if your ideas are the cause of that controversy.
To be fair, Sage, Galileo is about the closet thing atheists have to a martyr, not exactly an obscure or arcane symbol.
Though I’m not sure why ITR cares. Christianity has so many martyrs, what the problem if we sort-of have just one? Are Christians greedy or something, hogging all the martyrs?
Lousy martyr-hoarders…
What does Galileo have to do with atheism? He wasn’t an atheist. There was nothing atheistic about his discoveries. His was not a conflict between atheism and theism (I don’t think the Church ever even intimated that he was an atheist, only that he was a heretic), but between scientific discovery and dogmatic religious orthodoxy.
It is not a “myth,” that Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy,” that he was forced to recant heliocentrism, that he was placed under house arrest and that his book was banned.
I am now waiting for the OP to start a thread asserting that the Inquistion is an atheist myth.
In Bruno’s case, it was pretty definitely the unitarianism and anti-transubstantiation that did him in. With Galileo, I think he had the misfortune of publishing his theories, undiplomatically, in a time period when the Catholic Church was facing an existential crisis and particularly intolerant of dissent.
Bellarmine did write to Foscarini in 1615, though, saying:
No one would expect that!
I wasn’t aware that atheism had or needed martyrs to provide evidence on our side.
- Galileo
- ???
- Atheism!
The closest I can give (perhaps you were referencing this already?).
(Though for all I know, he doesn’t say anything incorrect in that post. But I don’t know very much.)
I’m not sure “we didn’t kill Bruno because of science, we killed him because of heresy” is a great rebuttal to people who dislike religion.
But isn’t it telling that for some people it is.