# Randi tackles religion vs. science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2003, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857 "2003-07-25T13:47:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/61 "2003-07-26T19:12:25Z")
**emarkp** , I never thought I’d be agreeing with you on the sdmb, but your post was totalyl accrtae there. I agree with you. My opinion of Randi is lower now, and he has e mailed me twice with sarcastic comments on religion. I’ve taken his web site off my home page. Let the “brights” advertise his form of prejudice. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/62 "2003-07-26T19:18:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bbart4 \* > \*\*Science can be used for both good and bad, so? :rolleyes: > > “Love,” religion and science are not mutually exclusive. > > Huh? \*\* Religion can be used for good and bad, so? :rolleyes: “Love”, I like to use the term “spiritual love” to separate the real thing from those who think of their private parts, is a state of mind. It is a deep respect for life, all life, and the worthiness of that life. While it is most generally taught in a theistic setting, that is not entirely necessary. When you achieve this respect you will automatically respect and consider yourself worthy. You can not kill from a position of fear, while you remain in a state of love. Love Leroy ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/63 "2003-07-26T19:23:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*It wasn’t until well after Copernicus’ death that the final problems with his model were worked out (basically, Copernicus considered all orbits to be circular because the circle was the perfect form – when it was realized that the orbits were actually ellipses, many of the problems vanished). \*\* Let’s not overreach. Tycho Brahe was among the first to describe the planets as using elliptical orbits, and he still developed a modified version of Aristotlean motion to describe the motion of the planets. Indeed, Brahe’s theory of planetary movement remained in vogue even into the 1700s. It isn’t like Galileo had an irrefutable case at the time he was writing _Dialog_. It wasn’t until much, much later that Copernicanism was irrefutably established as correct. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/64 "2003-07-26T19:33:28Z")
What do you mean, ‘correct’? You can, if you wish, develop a perfectly workable model that has the rest of the solar system circling the Earth. It’s nightmarishly complex, and it can’t be reduced to more fundamental principles, but it can be done. The point is that the heliocentric model worked just as well as the geocentric (once people began using it and working out the kinks, of course). Galileo supported considering the heliocentric model to be “true” since it was so much simpler. Galileo could see the moons of Jupiter, **Dewey**. He knew that the Church’s claims were wrong. (There were apologists who attempted to find ways to explain the observations, but they weren’t particularly impressive.) ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/65 "2003-07-26T19:41:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > **That’s nice. How does that actually contradict what I said, again?** You said problems begain when Galileo turned to the heavens, implying that the church didn’t want anyone looking skyward. That is patently false. Clavius did so with no reprisals, as did many others. \*\* > [@](#): > > Gee, and that couldn’t be a biased source.\*\* It’s a respected and well-established work. You’re free to disbelieve that, but you’d be wrong. Would you similarly discount the views of a Notre Dame professor? I also note that **Reepicheep** cites to PBS. Will that do?\*\* > [@](#): > > Your description is incomplete and misleading. > > The Church had developed the doctrine that the heavens were perfect, and Galileo showed that astronomical objects were just as “imperfect” as the Earth was. _He saw objects orbiting Jupiter_, which contradicted the doctrine that the Earth was the center of everything in Creation. More to the point, it made the Copernican model more credible.\*\* And no one had a problem with those observations, or with the notion that Copernican motion might describe the way the universe worked. What they _did_ have a problem with was the notion that Copernican motion must necessarily be correct. As noted, that question was hardly definitively answered in Galileo’s time. The church was unwilling to disturb established religious doctrine in favor of a newfangled theory of planetary motion that might turn out to be false. Thus the requirement that Copernican writers describe the theory as one under development. \*\* > [@](#): > > If you want to cling to the Sunday School version of the misunderstood institution that was unfairly blamed for questioning a heretical scientist, fine. \*\* Nowhere have I said the church was blameless in the Galileo affair. Indeed, their final injunction against him was a huge overreach. They are rightfully condemned for taking that action. But there is more to the story than that. The real world is not so simple. The church mishandled the Galileo situation, but it was not the monolithic opponent of scientific inquiry that the kindergarten story makes them out to be. Galileo shares some blame for what happened. He was too arrogant and too strident in his views – views which, once again, he could not prove were correct at the time. If he had simply acknowledged that his view was one possibility among many – as most of his contemporaries freely did – he could have avoided much of what befell him. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/66 "2003-07-26T19:47:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*Galileo could see the moons of Jupiter, **Dewey**. He knew that the Church’s claims were wrong. (There were apologists who attempted to find ways to explain the observations, but they weren’t particularly impressive.) \*\* Tycho Brahe was a church apologist? PBS disagrees with the assertion that Galileo’s observations alone proved a Copernican system was, in fact, the way the universe operated. Galileo was too strident in his claims of correctness. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/67 "2003-07-26T19:58:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*You said problems begain when Galileo turned to the heavens, implying that the church didn’t want anyone looking skyward. That is patently false. Clavius did so with no reprisals, as did many others. \*\* I’m reassured that you can confidently consider your misunderstandings of my points to be patently false – at least you’re consistent. Galileo made his lenses himself, and his telescopes were better than anything else that existed at the time. He could see things with his instruments that no one else could because of their high quality – and it was the things Galileo saw when he looked upwards that caused the problems. Not surprisingly, the Church wasn’t particularly upset by Galileo being able to see details of Earthly objects. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > **It’s a respected and well-established work. You’re free to disbelieve that, but you’d be wrong. Would you similarly discount the views of a Notre Dame professor?** I’m not disputing that it’s respected and well-established. I’m disputing the implied claim that it’s free of bias. That’s actually an excellent point: the Catholic Church has its Index of banned books, does it not? Books that the faithful are forbidden to read because it might endanger their souls? How exactly are the methods of science compatible with this stance? > [@](#): > > \*\*I also note that **Reepicheep** cites to PBS. Will that do? **And no one had a problem with those observations, or with the notion that Copernican motion might describe the way the universe worked. What they _did_ have a problem with was the notion that Copernican motion must necessarily be correct.** Do you have any understanding of what it means for a scientific theory to be “correct”? Galileo was completely justified in his claims – I don’t think you have any idea of what those claims were. > [@](#): > > **As noted, that question was hardly definitively answered in Galileo’s time. The church was unwilling to disturb established religious doctrine in favor of a newfangled theory of planetary motion that might turn out to be false.** The Church was unwilling to admit that their “doctrine” contradicted the observable universe. When faith and belief contradicts reason and observation, the Church decided that faith must win. > [@](#): > > **Thus the requirement that Copernican writers describe the theory as one under development.** Interesting – most historical accounts of those theories I’ve read mention that everyone around Galileo was deeply concerned that the Church would come after him if he presented the evidence as contradicting its teachings. Other astronomers had similar problems – many of them arranged to have important works printed only after their deaths. > [@](#): > > \*\*Nowhere have I said the church was blameless in the Galileo affair. Indeed, their final injunction against him was a huge overreach. They are rightfully condemned for taking that action. But there is more to the story than that. The real world is not so simple. \*\* The truth of the matter is that the Church was orders of magnitude more arrogant than Galileo ever was. Galileo never threatened to torture and execute his critics, nor did he hold the fires of Hell over their heads. The Catholic Church’s behavior in this matter is not an isolated incident. It’s part of a pattern of behavior. > [@](#): > > \*\*The church mishandled the Galileo situation, but it was not the monolithic opponent of scientific inquiry that the kindergarten story makes them out to be. Galileo shares some blame for what happened. He was too arrogant and too strident in his views – views which, once again, he could not prove were correct at the time. If he had simply acknowledged that his view was one possibility among many – as most of his contemporaries freely did – he could have avoided much of what befell him. \*\* Galileo was, in many ways, the first modern scientist. He formulated the basic principles of scientific inquiry. HE WAS RIGHT – not in that the Earth circled the Sun, although he was certainly right about that – but that the available evidence justified his claims and weakened the position of the Church. ---
**Author:** ![Reepicheep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@Reepicheep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reepicheep)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/68 "2003-07-26T20:24:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\* Galileo was, in many ways, the first modern scientist. He formulated the basic principles of scientific inquiry. HE WAS RIGHT – not in that the Earth circled the Sun, although he was certainly right about that – but that the available evidence justified his claims and weakened the position of the Church. \*\* Not exactly _And in the realm of science, astronomers were wrestling with the difficult question of whether to retain Claudius Ptolemy’s (c.100-c.170 AD) ancient “geocentric” universe, which had all the planets circling the Earth, or adopt the new “heliocentric” system of Nicolaus Copernicus(1473- 1543), where planets and Earth circled the Sun. How did one choose between them? Surprising as it may seem to the modern reader, in the 16th century there was no observational test or proof available for either of the two theories. Both were mathematically complex, both used uniform circular motion and a combination of deferents and epicycles to represent the planets, and both gave tolerably good predictions for planetary positions._\* A scientist could reasonably hold either theory “in good faith”, and a decision between them could not be made on scientific grounds alone;\*\* so it is not so unusual that people looked to revelation and faith to bridge the gap.\* Bolding mine - From Urban’s point of view, it seemed like Galileo had deliberately broken the law, and insulted him at the same time. This does not justify what happened to Galileo, but at least it helps us understand why Church officials behaved the way they did. The motion of the Earth was not the point, they thought; Galileo had cheated, reneged on his promises, and broken his word! \* ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/69 "2003-07-26T20:35:44Z")
> [@](#): > > and Bruno was tried by the Inquisition, convicted, and burned at the stake for espousing Copernican-derived ideas. No, he was not. Bruno was convicted of heresy based on a whole series of _theological_ propositions (that Jesus was not Divine, among them) that he had espoused outside the area of astronomy. In fact, Bruno had been condemned by the Calvinists, forced to flee England after disputes there, and excommunicated by the Lutherans whom he joined, briefly. He tended to make people mad, regardless where he went. Throwing Bruno in as a victim of theology over science displays a far greater bias in reporting than **Dewey** ’s sources regarding the trial of Galileo. (And I find it amusing that **Dewey** ’s citations are dismissed simply because they are found on religious sites, when his first citation is featured on the site of the [Australian Skeptics](http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/links/promskep.htm) who apparently found it sufficiently accurate.) Here are a couple of other sources regarding Galileo: [http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/galileo.html](http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/galileo.html) [http://www.petersnet.net/research/retrieve.cfm?RecNum=2605](http://www.petersnet.net/research/retrieve.cfm?RecNum=2605) Regarding: > [@](#): > > The Church had developed the doctrine that the heavens were perfect, and Galileo showed that astronomical objects were just as “imperfect” as the Earth was. He saw objects orbiting Jupiter, which contradicted the doctrine that the Earth was the center of everything in Creation. More to the point, it made the Copernican model more credible. > [@](#): > > Galileo was completely justified in his claims – I don’t think you have any idea of what those claims were. It does not appear to me that you know exactly what his claims were. The moons of Jupiter were never an issue in his trial, in which he erroneously claimed that the planets _were_ circling the sun in _perfect_ circles and in which he claimed that the motion of the earth affected the tides. In other words, having made his claims, he provided erroneous evidence to defend them. (And this after insisting that the church modify the teaching of scripture to support his views. As long as he published science, he was left alone. When he took on theology, he got in trouble.) There seems to be as much propaganda in the attacks on the church as there is in its defense. Speculations that “maybe distance” protected Copernicus from the church are shown to be specious when it is noted that he took refuge with a Catholic bishop when threatened by Lutherans for his works. The trial of Galileo is no sterling event in the history of the Church, but it is simply not the attack on science that some would like to portray. ---
**Author:** ![Reepicheep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@Reepicheep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reepicheep)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/70 "2003-07-26T20:36:16Z")
Can’t edit, frell. Sorry to do this on two posts. cite _A Jesuit father, Horatio Grassi, advocated the correct view that comets move in regular orbits like planets. Galileo’s own copy of this treatise has survived, and its margins are profusely annotated with terms like “piece of assininity,” “evil poltroon,” and “ungrateful villian.” He attacked Grassi publically in a manuscript that he persuaded a former pupil to sign, although it was in Galileo’s handwriting. At one point he wrote: “You cannot help it, Signor Sarsi, that it was granted to me alone to discover all the new phenomena in the sky and nothing to anybody else. This is the truth which neither malice nor envy can suppress.” His sarcastic attackes alienated Grassi and many other powerful Jesuit scholars. He continued his work, and continued also the controversy over whether the Copernican system was to “save the appearances” or represented physical fact. Eventually Pope Urban suggested a solution to the difficulty: even if the Copernican system explains the motions of the planets, it may not be true because God is all-powerful and might have produced the same appearances by some entirely different means that are not understood._ ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/71 "2003-07-26T20:38:11Z")
> [@](#): > > HE WAS RIGHT – not in that the Earth circled the Sun, although he was certainly right about that – but that the available evidence justified his claims and weakened the position of the Church. “The available evidence” did **not** support his position. He was right, almost by accident. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/72 "2003-07-26T20:38:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > **Galileo made his lenses himself, and his telescopes were better than anything else that existed at the time. He could see things with his instruments that no one else could because of their high quality – and it was the things Galileo saw when he looked upwards that caused the problems.** Yes, and Clavius saw those same things when he confirmed Galileo’s observations of Jupiter. But he didn’t run into any problems. Ergo, it is not the detailed glance heavenward that caused Galileo trouble. \*\* > [@](#): > > I’m not disputing that it’s respected and well-established. I’m disputing the implied claim that it’s free of bias.\*\* No source is bias-free. The _CE_ is a respectable well, established source. That is good enough. If you think there is something inaccurate in that article, I suggest you point it out and explain why it’s wrong, rather than just making unfounded assertions of improper bias. \*\* > [@](#): > > That’s actually an excellent point: the Catholic Church has its Index of banned books, does it not? Books that the faithful are forbidden to read because it might endanger their souls? How exactly are the methods of science compatible with this stance?\*\* I did not wade into this thread to defend every aspect of church doctrine. I came in hear to mention some specific facts about the Galileo affair. \*\* > [@](#): > > Do you have any understanding of what it means for a scientific theory to be “correct”? Galileo was completely justified in his claims – I don’t think you have any idea of what those claims were.\*\* Galileo claimed enough certainty in Copernican theory to justify rewriting church doctrine. In a nutshell, that level of certainty simply was not attainable at the time. Galileo’s observations were compelling, but not dispositive. It was a mistake for him to argue otherwise. \*\* > [@](#): > > The Church was unwilling to admit that their “doctrine” contradicted the observable universe. \*\* Not so. Tycho Brahe’s theory of motion could plausibly be adapted to fit the observable universe of Galileo’s time. The Church was unwilling to revise doctrine based on a theory that was not yet widely accepted as correct in the scientific community. \*\* > [@](#): > > When faith and belief contradicts reason and observation, the Church decided that faith must win.\*\* Again, this is not so. Were it so, Copernicanism would have been deemed a heresy, and the church would have tried to stamp out all its proponents. It was not, and they did not. \*\* > [@](#): > > The truth of the matter is that the Church was orders of magnitude more arrogant than Galileo ever was. Galileo never threatened to torture and execute his critics, nor did he hold the fires of Hell over their heads. \*\* Whatever the other sins of the Catholic Church may be, it did not physically harm Galileo, nor did it seriously threaten to do so. He was sentenced to house arrest in his country home in Florence, where he died peacefully in his bed. And Galileo _was_ an arrogant prick. Pope Urban VIII was once his friend and patron, with whom he had discussed cosmology and who might have been sympathetic to Galileo’s plight. Yet in his _Discourses_, Galileo puts the words of Urban into the mouth of the character Simplicio, a foolish buffoon who is repeatedly mocked and befuddled. Way to win friends and influence people there, big G. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/73 "2003-07-26T20:41:43Z")
**Reepicheep** , I can only conclude that you’re missing the point(s). First, the Catholic Church (as opposed to Christianity in general) had openly committed itself to a model of the solar system. It cannot be considered a neutral bystander to this “scientific” dispute. Secondly, your statements that there wasn’t enough “proof” of either model is nonsensical. There isn’t enough proof to demonstrate this now! If we chose, we could validly consider the Earth to be standing still and everything else moving around it. The heliocentric model is much, _much_ simpler than the geocentric, which is why it’s innately better as far as science is concerned. If the two models give the same general results, but one is both simpler and more logical, it is superior, and it can and should be regarded as “true”. Galileo was convicted of proclaiming a doctrine contrary to religious doctrine. What more do I need to say? This wasn’t about the scientific merits of the theory – even if Copernicus’ model had turned out to be wrong, Galileo would be allowed to present his position according to the principles of scientific debate. It was the Church that tried to silence opposition or contradiction at any cost. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/74 "2003-07-26T20:53:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*Galileo was convicted of proclaiming a doctrine contrary to religious doctrine. What more do I need to say? This wasn’t about the scientific merits of the theory – even if Copernicus’ model had turned out to be wrong, Galileo would be allowed to present his position according to the principles of scientific debate. It was the Church that tried to silence opposition or contradiction at any cost. \*\* Actually, the Church was more than willing to allow Galileo to “present his position according to the principles of scientific debate” – namely, to present his case as one possible, but unproven, model for how the universe operates. Galileo sought to go farther – to say that his theory _was_ the correct one, that other theories were wrong, and that the church should alter its doctrine accordingly. And _that’s_ what got him into trouble. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/75 "2003-07-26T20:56:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > **Yes, and Clavius saw those same things when he confirmed Galileo’s observations of Jupiter. But he didn’t run into any problems. Ergo, it is not the detailed glance heavenward that caused Galileo trouble.** Well, duh. It was the conclusions that Galileo drew, which Clavius did not, that was the problem. > [@](#): > > **No source is bias-free. The _CE_ is a respectable well, established source. That is good enough.** Good enough for what? Admittedly, it’s not free of bias, so we need to examine its claims carefully, just as we would any other source. > [@](#): > > \*\*I came in hear to mention some specific facts about the Galileo affair. \*\*Galileo claimed enough certainty in Copernican theory to justify rewriting church doctrine. In a nutshell, that level of certainty simply was not attainable at the time. \*\* He was certain enough to contradict church doctrine; he had suggested (in several missives and letters) that the Church’s teachings about the nature of the heavens would need to be corrected. (If the Church had refrained from turning pre-scientific ideas about the universe into its doctrine [as the other branches of Christianity did not], none of this would ever have happened.) > [@](#): > > **Galileo’s observations were compelling, but not dispositive. It was a mistake for him to argue otherwise.** Um, hello. Galileo wasn’t trying to rewrite Catholic doctrine. He wasn’t a religious reformer: to the contrary, he was a fairly devout individual. > [@](#): > > \*\*Not so. Tycho Brahe’s theory of motion could plausibly be adapted to fit the observable universe of Galileo’s time. The Church was unwilling to revise doctrine based on a theory that was not yet widely accepted as correct in the scientific community. \*\* The “scientific community” as we know it didn’t exist then. Not that that mattered, as the Church’s doctrines were never concerned with the findings of men of science. You’ve got the cart _way_ in front of the horse, here. You are referring, of course, to the idea that everything else in the solar system went around the sun while the sun orbited the Earth. Does the phrase “ad hoc” mean anything to you? It’s far simpler and logically coherent to conclude that everything is going around the sun. If one model holds that Earth is inexplicably different than everything else, and another has no need of this assumption, and they both give similar results… the second one is better. > [@](#): > > \*\*Again, this is not so. Were it so, Copernicanism would have been deemed a heresy, and the church would have tried to stamp out all its proponents. It was not, and they did not. \*\* Fortunately, the Church was becoming somewhat more enlightened by this point. If this debate had taken place a few hundred years before, heliocentrism probably would have been decreed a heresy. Of course, it never would have been formulated if the Church hadn’t lightened up, so it’s a nifty little paradox. > [@](#): > > \*\*Whatever the other sins of the Catholic Church may be, it did not physically harm Galileo, nor did it seriously threaten to do so. \*\* He was lead to the signing of his statement through chambers filled with instruments of torture. See, no implied message there… > [@](#): > > \*\*And Galileo _was_ an arrogant prick. Pope Urban VIII was once his friend and patron, with whom he had discussed cosmology and who might have been sympathetic to Galileo’s plight. Yet in his _Discourses_, Galileo puts the words of Urban into the mouth of the character Simplicio, a foolish buffoon who is repeatedly mocked and befuddled. Way to win friends and influence people there, big G. \*\* Galileo was frustrated at the incredibly amount of idiocy being spewed at his observations, and Pope Urban’s position _was_ idiotically simple. You can’t seem to distinguish between being an arrogant prick and being right. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/76 "2003-07-26T20:58:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*Actually, the Church was more than willing to allow Galileo to “present his position according to the principles of scientific debate” – namely, to present his case as one possible, but unproven, model for how the universe operates. Galileo sought to go farther – to say that his theory _was_ the correct one, that other theories were wrong, and that the church should alter its doctrine accordingly. And _that’s_ what got him into trouble. \*\* For crying out loud – THE OTHER “THEORIES” WERE NOT EQUAL OR EQUIVALENT TO THE HELIOCENTRIC VIEW. [Galileo’s letter to the Church](http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/galileo/galileo.html) [The Church’s reply](http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/galileo/church.html) Read 'em and weep, **Dewey**. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/77 "2003-07-26T21:01:22Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow_ > Cites provided earlier in this thread. Most notably to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which, in spite of its commission, is a serious compilation by academics. Probably more respected than _The New Hippies’ Guide To History While Stoned,_ fersure. But I’ll bet you’ll have a hard time finding much serious, hard-hitting criticism of the Church in it, and the issue at hand certainly is one of sensitivity in those areas. Remember, this is the same organization that published the _Index,_ as **TVAA** mentioned. A list of books that must NOT be read by the faithful is hardly in the spirit of scientific inquiry. PBS references I can take a little easier. In **Reepicheep’s** PBS ref and others, it seems the current (revisionist?) trend of thought is that Galileo, while persecuted, wasn’t roughed up as much as other accused heretics. I fail to see why this makes much difference here – no matter how much “arrogance” may have been a factor with Galileo’s treatment, it was still a faith vs. science conflict where faith could not be allowed to challenge science without repercussions. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/78 "2003-07-26T21:14:44Z")
[This site](http://websupport2.citytech.cuny.edu/hsp/techprep/curriculum/course/church.htm) has a fairly balanced treatment of both Galileo and the Church. Read several of the pages to get a good idea of what it’s saying. It’s true that the Church wasn’t opposed to the consideration of the heliocentric model as a purely abstract and mathematical way of computing planetary motion. But if someone claimed that the model might actually be _true_… well, that was a horse of a different color. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/79 "2003-07-26T21:15:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > **Well, duh. It was the conclusions that Galileo drew, which Clavius did not, that was the problem.** Duh yourself. _You_ were the one claiming the church was only content to allow telescopes so long as they were pointed at the Earth. \*\* [/quote] Good enough for what? Admittedly, it’s not free of bias, so we need to examine its claims carefully, just as we would any other source.\*\* [/quote] I agree that any source should be scrutinized carefully. However, my citation should not be summarily dismissed just because it contains the word “Catholic” in the name, either. If you’ve got a specific issue, pony up with your own citations. \*\* > [@](#): > > He was certain enough to contradict church doctrine; he had suggested (in several missives and letters) that the Church’s teachings about the nature of the heavens would need to be corrected. > > […] > > Um, hello. Galileo wasn’t trying to rewrite Catholic doctrine. He wasn’t a religious reformer: to the contrary, he was a fairly devout individual.\*\* You contradict yourself rather sharply between these two paragraphs. \*\* > [@](#): > > You are referring, of course, to the idea that everything else in the solar system went around the sun while the sun orbited the Earth. Does the phrase “ad hoc” mean anything to you? It’s far simpler and logically coherent to conclude that everything is going around the sun. \*\* Look, the simple fact is that many legitimate astronomers of the day adopted the Tycho Brahe theory of planetary motion. Were Brahe and his followers all church apologists? How often do you take off the tinfoil hat? And, quite frankly, Galileo’s theory had some gaping holes in it (most notably, as **tomndebb** points out, because he relied on perfectly circular orbits). At the time Galileo lived, holding to the Ptolomeic theory was acceptable and, frankly, more grounded in what had actually been observed. Galileo was eventually proved right, but you could have gotten pretty good odds from learned men of the day on a bet that history would prove him wrong. \*\* > [@](#): > > Fortunately, the Church was becoming somewhat more enlightened by this point. If this debate had taken place a few hundred years before, heliocentrism probably would have been decreed a heresy. Of course, it never would have been formulated if the Church hadn’t lightened up, so it’s a nifty little paradox. \*\* Have you any basis for this assertion, or is just your bias talking? “A few hundred years before” would have preceded the Inquisition, generally regarded as the least tolerant chapter in the Church’s history. And Copernicus lived right smack dab in the middle of the Protestant Reformation, when the Church was particularly jumpy about threats to its authority. If ever there was an era when the Church was likely to declare Copernicusism a heresy, it was at that time.\*\* > [@](#): > > He was lead to the signing of his statement through chambers filled with instruments of torture. See, no implied message there…\*\* Cite? \*\* > [@](#): > > Galileo was frustrated at the incredibly amount of idiocy being spewed at his observations, and Pope Urban’s position _was_ idiotically simple.\*\* Galileo could have published his work and made the same points without mocking his former patron. It was a dumb move. Burning bridges, and all that. \*\* > [@](#): > > You can’t seem to distinguish between being an arrogant prick and being right. \*\* I have no idea what this means. I clearly recognize that Galileo was eventually proved right. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t a prick, and it doesn’t mean that if he had exercised a little tact, he might not have gone to trial. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/80 "2003-07-26T21:25:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > **For crying out loud – THE OTHER “THEORIES” WERE NOT EQUAL OR EQUIVALENT TO THE HELIOCENTRIC VIEW.** By the the evidence and theories available at what time? In Galileo’s era, the heliocentric view was not as robustly supported as it is today. Galileo’s explanation had serious flaws in it. And there were Ptolemaic explanations that were accepted by learned persons as credible. You keep wanting to impose four centuries of scientific progress on Galileo’s time. You fail to recognize that at that time, the issue was far from settled, even among serious astronomers. \*\* > [@](#): > > [Galileo’s letter to the Church](http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/galileo/galileo.html) > [The Church’s reply](http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/galileo/church.html) > Read 'em and weep, **Dewey**. \*\* Read _what_ and weep? How do these documents change my argument one whit? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857.md?page=5)