So to sum up for those getting here late. ITR Champion posted some utter rubbish about how the Catholic church was all “Yay Heliocentrism!” and gave Galileo the Honeymoon suite at the Inquisition Arms hotel, that lucky stiff.
Every couple of weeks we get a thread like this asserting that Christians aren’t really as bad as all that or Atheists are filthy mud-sifting slime worms that belch lies and fart intolerance and each time they’re shot down and the OP never learns:
Was the medieval Catholic church mean, wrongheaded and ignorant? Of course it was. Does that reflect on modern day Christians? Of course not. To minimize the level of their crimes is a perfect way to get them to start doing it again.
Christianity has a history of evil, hatred, stupidity and pettiness… just like the society it was in.
The church recognized that the heliocentric theory correctly identified the motions of our solar system in 1838 when Friedrich Bessel determined the parallax of Star 61, finally providing the correct evidence that Galileo had failed to provide and establishing that the Earth moved about the sun.
The 1992 re-examination of the 1616 and 1632 trials determined that they had serious errors of procedure and that their conclusion regarding heresy was unfounded since the church had never declared a formal doctrine regarding the relationship between the Earth and sun. (Bellarmine’s comments, as Galileo’s and those of everyone else involved, were personal speculation that was not in support of or supported by actual doctrine.)
Another aspect of the 1632 trial is that Galileo was not tried, at that point, for heresy. He was tried for having violated an order from the first trial that prohibited him from publicly expounding heliocentrism. In other words: disobedience, not heresy. At the trial, Galileo testified that he had never seen that letter and the conclusion reached durig the 1992 examination was that he was probably telling the truth and that the letter had been added to the file without his knowledge, either at the end of the 1616 trial or sometime subsequent to it as a deliberate effort to entrap him if the file was re-opened.
Galileo had been friends with Cardinal Barberini, who had supported his investigations, if not necesarily his conclusions, during the 1616 trial. When Barberini was elevated to be Pope Urban VIII, Galileo began to pester him to reverse the 1616 decision and permit open discussion of heliocentrism. As pope, Urban was unwilling to get into the business of overturning judicial rulings–particularly over some arcane bit of natural philosophy–and declined. During his exchanges with Galileo, (I do not recall whether before or after he became pope), Urban suggested an alternative explanation for the appearance of the heavens that Galileo found silly. When Urban would not re-open the issue, Galileo published an essay, Dialogue on the Two World Systems, in which he put the pope’s ideas into the mouth of a character named Simplicio, (meaning simpleton), and wrote the essay in a way that made it clear to all who read it (at the time), that he was calling the pope a simpleton.
This is one of the more interesting debates I have seen in recent days. Count me as one who, prior to this thread, was in the “church persecuted Galileo because of his radical and totally correct scientific views” camp, but I haven’t really thought about it in sometime. Back in my BBS days there was a guy who was vehemently anti-religion who at one point posted what he claimed was the transcript of Galileo’s speech recanting his beliefs to the pope, but I can’t seem to find it anywhere. Can anyone help here? Since he was under duress, I think it is relevant to figure out exactly what they wanted to hear from him.
This is not true. Sagan was studiously neutral on the question of God’s existence and refused to ever say he was either an atheist or a theist. His position was true agnosticism. He believed that the data simply does not exist to know whether God exists and considered it to be an open question.
Sagan was always very respectful of religious faith and did not disparage it. He was no Dawkins or Hitchens.
Wait? So Galileo’s observation of Jupiter’s moons, the phases of Venus, combined with Kepler’s massive volume of mathematical work demonstrating the elliptical orbits wasn’t enough?!
Well, first you have to recall that if the church is considering Galileo’s work, they do not have to look at Kepler, at all. Kepler was one of the victims of Galileo’s penchant for attacking anyone who did not worship at the altar of Galileo’s genius and Galileo claimed that that planets’ orbits were circular, not elliptical. Since that was demonstrably not true, as the Vatican’s own astronomers could attest, that was one of the issues that argued against Galileo’s claims.
The Jovian moons, Vewnusian phases, and elliptical orbits were handled, if not very cleanly, by Brahe’s convoluted attempt to reconcile Ptolemy with observed data, leaving the observation of a parallax as the single established point that would absolutely establish the heliocentric theory. It was the only evidence that demonstrated that the Earth moved as opposed to being the center of a horrendously complicated divine orrery.
(This is not to say that astronomers actually accepted Brahe over Galileo between 1632 and 1838, but that Galileo’s claim was simply not the only possible explanation before the parallax was discovered. Galileo also offered the Earth tides as evidence for the Earth moving. He got quite a few things wrong despite the correctness of his central point.)
He said “An atheist has to know more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God.” Most atheists (IME) would not agree with this narrow definition of what it takes to be an atheist. I wouldn’t say Sagan was neutral on the question of God’s existence (unless being without belief is being neutral).
Again, IME, most of us do not define atheism and agnosticism in such a way that they are mutually exclusive.
I would appreciate it if JThunder would tell us why he believes Carl Sagan had an axe to grind against religion and where he got the idea that Sagan “was a pretty militant atheist who made his disdain for religion abundantly clear.” That’s two unsubstantiated claims made against Sagan in this thread so far. Hopefully the OP will tell us where in The Demon-Haunted World Sagan repeats any Galileo myths.
You’re talking about the same Carl Sagan who said,
“The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by ‘God’ one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying… it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.”
Now, even if we grant that the was merely advocating agnosticism rather than atheism, the point remains… This was a fella who had a definite axe to grind against theism. Even if we accept that he did not endorse atheism (either explicitly or implicitly), to say that he was steadfastly neutral is simply absurd.
That quote doesn’t say anything about his beliefs, or even his regards for religion. I’m sure there are plenty christians who would completely agree with it.
“A definite axe to grind against theism”? Because he thinks "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous? You really don’t believe thinking that sort of childish idea of what God is is ludicrous means that one has an axe to grind with theism or makes him a militant atheist, do you? That quote showed a disdain towards religion? You can’t believe that.
Who the hell does believe in the God with the white beard and robes? That’s not even in the Bible, it’s an artist’s depiction, and today it’s mostly a parody. All he said was said God doesn’t actually look like this. Most believers don’t even believe that.
I don’t think there’s any question that Sagan was, let’s say a “nontheist”. But he certainly wasn’t militant about it in the way Dawkins is. Although he had some things to say about traditional religion, I associate him much more with a.) attempting to share the wonders of science, in which he was quite willing to use terms like “spiritual” and b.) engaging in the debunking of pseudoscience, but this was usually much more aimed at things of the nature of astrology and UFOlogy and creationism than it was at more traditional forms of organized religion. Of course that last one–debunking creationism–has a good bit of overlap with debunking religion itself; but I think much of what Sagan said was perfectly palatable to theologically liberal theists, whether it was debunking astrology or extolling the wonders of the cosmos.
By contrast, people like Dawkins or Sam Harris have written entire books aimed at dismantling theism in general and Christianity in particular, and have been outspoken in going after not just “fundamentalists” who directly intrude on science’s turf, but even on the more liberal theists of the sort who profess to have no problem reconciling God and evolution.
“just one of many He has allowed me to notice”–but your merciful Jesus has worked very hard at preventing this point from making the slightest sense to me.
I do take grave implications from the obviously-God-Ordained pun on “weak/week,” that you’re clearly alluding to in that same sentence, “it is a week pattern,” that I take to mean that you will come to your senses in about another week, and figure out something about the deep metaphysical significance of homonyms. Whenever I look, though, you still seem at least a week away.
Is it your position that every homonym in the Bible, after transliteration into English, or after an English equivalent can be found, is significant, or only those puns you’re aware of, or only those puns you want to interpret in a particular way? Does any of this apply to other languages, or only to translations into English (because English was Jesus’ original tongue?) Does the parallel between the two entirely coincidental meanings of “talent” also apply to, say, an eagle’s talon, or does the spelling or pronunciation need to be identical?
Also, tell me about these other “patters” God has shown you? Can He talk in an Oirish brogue, me bucko?