The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Did the Catholic Church execute people for suggesting Earth orbits the Sun?  (Read 36350 times)

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8682
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Does it really matter exactly what it was that the church persecuted Galileo?
It's not as if they were being Christian about it.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3826
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
I don't think many people think that Galileo was either tortured or imprisoned but there is no doubt that he was kept under house arrest and quite possibly 'shown the instruments' to help him make up his mind.
Bruno was quite set on his martyrdom and although given opportunity to recant refused, the Inquisition did not have people executed on a whim it was always a lengthy legal process. 
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
The point of this post IS to defend the Cath Church against allegations of impropriety in the Galileo case.
That's just great. Spiffing. However, I didn't notice anyone around here making such allegations. Did you?
No one can deny that most of the GDP is under the false impression that the Cath Church persecuted someone who alleged the Earth rev around the Sun.
GDP? Gross Domestic Product? Probably not, so what is it?
False impression? Well that depends upon what you mean by persecution. Galileo was subject to many restrictions and much anxiety because of his heliocentric views. Given that such actions against him were unjustified by the facts, then one might reasonably call it persecution.

Additionally, lets move to the Earth is flat scenario. The Church has never taught the Earth was flat and most people think we did. This is another misconception. Columbus never had any fear of falling off the flat Earth.
Do you specialise in tilting at windmills? I don't think many, if any, members here will subscribe to that old nonsense. The roundness of the planet had been known for centuries. A flat earth might have been a belief amongst some of the uneducated, but it was not a view of the RC church.

And has no-one here even read Copernicus? This is not surprising and is a consequence of Luther, Calvin, Bacon, Wieshaupt etc.
Yes, but not until recently. The fifty year delay had nothing to do with Luther, Calvin, Bacon, or anything other than a matter of priorities.

 

Offline roscoe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
GDP= generally dumb public. With a couple exceptions, the remarks here about the Cath Church have indeed been mild compared to other sites. The point of the post however is directed against the GDP and others who do not understand the Galileo case.

How were the actions against Galileo unjustified by facts?-- heliocentrism is a false doctrine. Science has shown the Sun to be in motion and since it is only one star in one Galaxy, there is hardly any proof that the Sun is the center of the Universe even if it IS in motion.

It is of course correct that the Church never taught the Earth was flat, but again-- the GDP does believe this.  EX-- Freemason Andrew Dickson White( founder of Cornell U) had the entire faculty and student body of Cornell convinced that the Church taught the Earth was flat. You can bet that De Rev was not on the reading list at Cornell or any other Ivy league college. Again-- the book can be considered the foundation of modern science and is nowhere present in this alleged western civilisation.

Bored-- I assume you mean WHY the Church 'persecuted' Galileo. The reason it matters is that it is heretical to say that Scripture and the Tradition of the Church( the collection of Dogmatic Articles of Faith that are equal to the Bible in Roman philosophy) cannot be reconciled to science and history.   
« Last Edit: 26/04/2009 08:36:56 by roscoe »
 

Offline Democritus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
I'm not sure if the Catholic Church executed anyone for holding an interplanetary theory contrary to its teachings, but it may well have executed those who were late returning library books.

I recall being thankful in escaping with a flogging for that crime. Perhaps my sentence was commuted from death to the lash on account of my youth. I was seven years old at the time.

Times have changed, and habits to. But not all habits. Stem cell research is the new Copernicanism.
Btw, I have a high regard for the modern church, though agnostic myself these days. Devotees sometimes describes themselves thus:

"I'm a practising  Catholic. Catholic meaning universal, practising meaning we haven't got it quite right yet."     

 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
The point of the post however is directed against the GDP and others who do not understand the Galileo case.
Then, if I may use an appropriate metaphor, you are singing to the choir. There are few if any GDPs here. (Although as I point out below I don't believe you properly understand the Galileo case.)

How were the actions against Galileo unjustified by facts?-- heliocentrism is a false doctrine.
No it isn't. The complex series of epicycles that astronomers had evolved to explain planetary motion could be discarded by considering that all the planets moved around the sun rather than the other planets and the sun moving around the Earth. Heliocentrism was an expression of that alternative.

As an adjunct of that it was suggested that the sun was the centre of the Universe, but this was not the central point (pun intended) of heliocentrism. The RC church was not objecting to the sun being placed at the centre of the Universe, but at the Earth being removed from that role. Those are two different things - a key point you seem oblivious to.

It is of course correct that the Church never taught the Earth was flat, but again-- the GDP does believe this.
So what?

EX-- Freemason Andrew Dickson White( founder of Cornell U) had the entire faculty and student body of Cornell convinced that the Church taught the Earth was flat. You can bet that DE Rev was not on the reading list at Cornell or any other Ivy league college. Again-- the book can be considered the foundation of modern science and is nowhere present in this
I don't see what this anecdotal interjection about a single individual has to do with anything. The consensus view amongst the educated for two millenia or more,starting I think with Aristotle, is that the Earth is round. The RC church has agreed with this consenus throughout that period, as far as I am aware. I stand ready to be corrected on this, but not by anecdotes about Freemasons.

Again-- the book can be considered the foundation of modern science and is nowhere present in this in this alleged western civilisation.
Now you have completely lost me. Which book? Ah, wait. "De Rev" is not some obscure theological degree held by Andrew Dickson White, but your disrespectful and obscure abbreviation of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, a copy of which I have beside me as I type.
1. Are you seriously claiming it is not on the reading list for History of Science courses at Ivy League universities?
2. Whether it is , or isn't what does that have to do with anything?
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
GDP= generally dumb public. With a couple exceptions,

Presumably you and the Pope eh!!! The rest of the world's population are dumb! I do not care much for the 'holier than thou' attitude.

As I have said there was no argument with, nor criticism of, the Catholic Church here until you posted this question and made sweeping remarks.

I am an atheist, I have no argument with the religious, all people are (or at least should be) free to believe whatever they want to believe. That is a matter for politicians and the religious, not for scientists. Science does not condemn religion, only the religious condemn each others religions'.

As I have said before, I suggest you take your argument to a religious forum. Why not join a Jewish forum and pose the question "Why did the Jews have Jesus crucified?" or a Buddhist forum and suggest that "The Buddha's tooth is not really in the Temple of the Tooth?"
« Last Edit: 26/04/2009 12:40:50 by Don_1 »
 

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7709
    • View Profile
Buddhist forum and suggest that "The Buddha's tooth is not really in the Temple of the Tooth?"
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Whilst I admire the idea of putting historic innacuracies and false popular assumtions correct, I fear the catholic church has far greater PR problems than Galileo.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8134
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
... suggest that "The Buddha's tooth is not really in the Temple of the Tooth?"

While we are on the topic of relics ...
In the middle ages about a dozen churches simultaneously claimed to have part of Jesus's foreskin.

If true it's a good job JC got circumcised, otherwise he'd be tripping over the thing.   :)

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutjesus/a/holyforeskin.htm

http://www.indopedia.org/Holy_Prepuce.html
 

Offline roscoe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
The point of the post however is directed against the GDP and others who do not understand the Galileo case.
Then, if I may use an appropriate metaphor, you are singing to the choir. There are few if any GDPs here. (Although as I point out below I don't believe you properly understand the Galileo case.)

How were the actions against Galileo unjustified by facts?-- heliocentrism is a false doctrine.
No it isn't. The complex series of epicycles that astronomers had evolved to explain planetary motion could be discarded by considering that all the planets moved around the sun rather than the other planets and the sun moving around the Earth. Heliocentrism was an expression of that alternative.

As an adjunct of that it was suggested that the sun was the centre of the Universe, but this was not the central point (pun intended) of heliocentrism. The RC church was not objecting to the sun being placed at the centre of the Universe, but at the Earth being removed from that role. Those are two different things - a key point you seem oblivious to.

It is of course correct that the Church never taught the Earth was flat, but again-- the GDP does believe this.
So what?

EX-- Freemason Andrew Dickson White( founder of Cornell U) had the entire faculty and student body of Cornell convinced that the Church taught the Earth was flat. You can bet that DE Rev was not on the reading list at Cornell or any other Ivy league college. Again-- the book can be considered the foundation of modern science and is nowhere present in this
I don't see what this anecdotal interjection about a single individual has to do with anything. The consensus view amongst the educated for two millenia or more,starting I think with Aristotle, is that the Earth is round. The RC church has agreed with this consenus throughout that period, as far as I am aware. I stand ready to be corrected on this, but not by anecdotes about Freemasons.

Again-- the book can be considered the foundation of modern science and is nowhere present in this in this alleged western civilisation.
Now you have completely lost me. Which book? Ah, wait. "De Rev" is not some obscure theological degree held by Andrew Dickson White, but your disrespectful and obscure abbreviation of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, a copy of which I have beside me as I type.
1. Are you seriously claiming it is not on the reading list for History of Science courses at Ivy League universities?
2. Whether it is , or isn't what does that have to do with anything?
The Sun and the Earth cannot both be the center of the Universe. Heliocentrism is a THEORY that says the Sun is at the center--this is not correct. During the time of Galileo, no one had a proper conception of the Solar system--this is what is in the process of developing.
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
rosco - Forget your crusade. No one here is going to take you seriously. The idea that Pre-Vactican II was PURE Catholicism and what we have now is not doesn't make any different to anyone here. The Catholic Church is and has been corrupt - at least since the time of Irenaeus, who felt it necessary to write a book against heresy because of the corruption he believe to exist - in 169 AD!  Yet the monastic movement that followed implicitly accepted a gnostic ideal (what Irenaeus argued against) in a personal relationship with God - many popes have been members of reclusive orders.

If the corruption of the everyday priesthood did not occur until after V2, why did the pope decide that a priest could not be married or have sex only in 1139? It was because of the lewd and licentious behavior of the priest of that day almost 800 years ago and a 1000 year history of abuse of this. There were 7 popes openly married, 11 who were sons of Latin Clergy, and 6 popes who openly acknowledged illegitimate children after 1139! As one priest writing on celibacy and morality within the Church says:

"The requirement of celibacy is not dogma; it is an ecclesiastical law that was adopted in the
Middle Ages because Rome was worried that clerics' children would inherit church property
and create dynasties. (Now the church is selling property to pay for the abuse scandal.) A
history of monastics and desert ascetics provided a celibate spirituality. But the requirement
could be changed by a stroke of the papal pen."

Then there was a Papal Bull that required any Catholic who had the opportunity to kill Queen Elizabeth I when she assumed the throne of England. That isn't the church I want to belong to. "Kill her if you can."

My former Carmelite spiritual director, the predecessor of the one I now have, would call you a non-believer because the Pope is infallible and you are denying this, saying that John XXIII And Paul VI and the results of Vatican II are all heretical.

According to doctrine - the infallibility of papal authority - it is you who are a heretic. 

Take you crusade elsewhere - you will find no audience here - we seem to be rational, unlike the declarations you have made against Vatican 2.

True Catholicism is the acceptance of a universal faith. A faith for all men - not just fanatics such as yourself.

And by the way, I am not catholic. I am a man of peace. Radical extremism of any sort, including the extremism that caused the slaughter of all of the "heretical" gnostic Christians 1700 years ago, is NOT productive of peace.

Take your hatred, Aristotelian Universe, and bitterns elsewhere. We do not want it nor will we tolerate it here.


« Last Edit: 26/04/2009 21:49:02 by JimBob »
 

Offline roscoe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Don-- I knew the hostitlity was here and the above post shows it. I will do my best to refute the above in due time.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Don-- I knew the hostitlity was here and the above post shows it. I will do my best to refute the above in due time.
Before you do that will you finish answering my questions and addressing my points. Thank you.
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Don-- I knew the hostitlity was here and the above post shows it. I will do my best to refute the above in due time.

Don't Bother - you are talking to the wrong person. And it isn't hatred - it is being disgusted with ignorance and a lack of perspective on a subject I know VERY well - I once went through a period of clarification for becoming a priest - albeit an Anglican priest. I did this with a Jesuit Theologian who was head of the theology department at Trinity University in New Orleans while he was doing his 30 year retreat after ordination.
« Last Edit: 26/04/2009 22:24:20 by JimBob »
 

Offline roscoe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
I get the feeling I am about to be banned.
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8682
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
This is a scientific website. You won't get banned if you can come up with real evidence to back up your ideas. (Paying RD his $1000 would help)
I'd also like and explanation (though I don't see how it can be scientific so it would be better to post it in "chatting") of how it was acceptable to subject Galileo to house arrest and other persecution for pointing out things that were true.
That's not a club I'd want to join.
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
I am only expressing my personal opinion as a member of the forum, not as my role as moderator.

As BC pointed out, if you can come up with the science - not just your belief - this will remain in Astronomy & Physics.
 

Offline roscoe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Roscoe, may I echo Don1...what are you trying to prove. Your blog seems to focus on some rather low blows, largely unsubstantiated, at Galileo's science and his character. You make a few observations that don't really hold water. (For example, at that time there were no real distinctions between physicists and astronomers. so to classify him as either is faulty. His extensive observations with telescopes of his own design certainly qualify him to be considered as an astronomer of note, contrary to your view.) And of course there is the introduction of the Photon Band nonsense. (Yes, it is nonsense. I'm quite happy to discuss that with you further on a new thread if you wish to start one.)

So, what is it you are trying to say?
Even Prof Pastor and Wade Rowland( Galileo's Mistake). who only see the astronomical side of the Galileo case, will admit that physics is his primary occupation. And as far as Galileo as an astronomer, Mr Rowlands book should more appropriatly be titled Galileo's Mistakes. Galileo is wrong about 1--tides, 2-comets, 3- ellipses, 4-- Sun being stationary, 5-- Sun being the center of the Universe. Yes he gets credit for Sunspots and Jupiters moons.
 

Offline roscoe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
When RD comes up with a name of someone executed for alleging Earth/Sun he will be paid-- Bruno does not qualify as Copernicanism is not even in play for another 16yrs-- when Galileo provokes the conflict. I will get to the rest about St Ireneus and the v2 'church' later as right now there are a couple of Nuns in the other room that are waiting for me to rape them. 
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
When RD comes up with a name of someone executed for alleging Earth/Sun he will be paid-- Bruno does not qualify as Copernicanism is not even in play for another 16yrs-- when Galileo provokes the conflict. I will get to the rest about St Ireneus and the v2 'church' later as right now there are a couple of Nuns in the other room that are waiting for me to rape them. 

I will pay $1000 to anyone who can provide the name of one person executed by the Catholic Church for alleging Earth revolves around the Sun.

Seems VERY contradictory - you changed the rules after making the offer.

This does not make you look very trustworthy.
 

Offline roscoe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
It is not true that G Bruno is executed for saying Earth rev around Sun. He denied the authority of both the Old and New Testaments and was therefore an obstinate heretic. He probably did believe Earth around Sun but the Church never had a prob with that. As stated prev, the Pruthenic tables of Copernicus that incorperate the idea of Earth/ Sun are used in the computation of the Gregorian Calendar in 1582.

And as far as changing rules, it is the admin of this site that changed the title of my post to something very misleading. There is no question re; whether the Church ever executed someone for saying Earth/Sun. Until a specific name is provided, that is the state of this alleged controversy.
« Last Edit: 27/04/2009 00:58:32 by roscoe »
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
It is only controversial because you say it is. To the church Bruno's disregard for ALL of Aristotle's works, including the centricity of the earth, were the reasons for his execution.
 

Offline roscoe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
There certainly are a bunch of reasons why Bruno was a heretic. Denying the Earth is the center of the universe is certainly one of them. Again-- the position of INQ was and is that the Earth is the center of the Universe in a spiritual sense that is not necessarily repective of it's physical location. The Earth being the center of the Universe is a DIFFERENT issue than whether the Earth rev around the Sun-- although they are related. 
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Why didn't you say this in the first place? It puts a completely different light on you question.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length