• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pope praises Galileo's astronomy

Well if he was still condemning it as blasphemy, that would look pretty bad now wouldn't it.
 
Iudahai said: (Once again, showing ignorance of Papal and Catholic history. Enjoy wallowing in ignorance though.)
Ok, so it was not exactly 400 years before the HRCC finally admitted it did not know better.
But 400 years or thereabouts is reasonably accurate.
I am not an adherent of this Catholic faith, I find it to be an hypocritical creed.
It is based (somewhat loosely) on the Bible, with certain tracts by various authors, while it has deleted other tracts which would have given a broader and more believable understanding of Christianity.

I find that the Idols I see in most Catholic Churches to be somewhat at odds with Gods word as passed to Moses 'Thou shalt not bow down and worship before graven images"
 
Iudahai said: (Once again, showing ignorance of Papal and Catholic history. Enjoy wallowing in ignorance though.)
Ok, so it was not exactly 400 years before the HRCC finally admitted it did not know better.
But 400 years or thereabouts is reasonably accurate.
I am not an adherent of this Catholic faith, I find it to be an hypocritical creed.
It is based (somewhat loosely) on the Bible, with certain tracts by various authors, while it has deleted other tracts which would have given a broader and more believable understanding of Christianity.

I find that the Idols I see in most Catholic Churches to be somewhat at odds with Gods word as passed to Moses 'Thou shalt not bow down and worship before graven images"

You obviously are not aware of WHY Galileo faced sanction from the Church. Did you realize that his work was sought out by the pope of the era? I will provide more information this evening as I am working on something else right now and will go to work soon.
 
The Catholic church has been ruining Jesus's image for thousands of years now(See: Crusades).
 
You obviously are not aware of WHY Galileo faced sanction from the Church. Did you realize that his work was sought out by the pope of the era? I will provide more information this evening as I am working on something else right now and will go to work soon.

Galileo faced sanction by the church for putting the words of the Pope at the time in the mouth of a fool (Simplico?) in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.

It was the fact that he offended the pope with that book that he was sanctioned.

Adn all he really did was show that Venus had phases like the moon when observed from Earth, thus proving the work of Copernicus and Kepler.

Galileo was a practical scientist, not a theoretical one. He used empiracal testing to support the concepts of totehrs more than he used his own ingenuity.

The telescope was invented by another. All he really did was point it up.
 
I find it interesting that as major holy-days approach, there is a coresponding increase in Catholic bashing.


This is a good thing--and still people have to be stupid about it.:doh
 
Galileo faced sanction by the church for putting the words of the Pope at the time in the mouth of a fool (Simplico?) in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.

It was the fact that he offended the pope with that book that he was sanctioned.

Adn all he really did was show that Venus had phases like the moon when observed from Earth, thus proving the work of Copernicus and Kepler.

Galileo was a practical scientist, not a theoretical one. He used empiracal testing to support the concepts of totehrs more than he used his own ingenuity.

The telescope was invented by another. All he really did was point it up.

Don't forget that the Mayans had Venus's cycles down pat. Maybe that is why the Inquisition was so nasty. They were trying to save face.
 
Felicity wrote. Quote (I find it interesting that as major holy-days approach)

What Holy days (Major or otherwise) are you referring to?

Please please do not say Christmas, because that is simply an ancient festival signifying the end of the year.
It was hijacked by the HRCC who even suggested that Christ / Jesus was born at that time.

It is actually stated that Jesus was born at the time of Tax assessment in what is now Israel, that time happens at Easter.
The reason the HRCC took the ancient non Christian end of year festivities as a time to celebrate the birth of Jesus was because they were never able to ban the celebrations.
Why they ascribed the birth of Jesus to this time of year, was I can only presume, because most folk could not in those days read and would thus not be able to read their Bibles and thus refute the HRCC dictats.
Now what Major holy-days were you referring to?
 
Last edited:
What I have read about the Church with science is that the idea that the universe revolves around Earth was a scientific theory, not so a religious dogma.

Ptolemy was an ancient astronomer who created the theory where stars, the Sun and the planets were orbiting around a still standing Earth. He even measured with great accuracy the mathematical -not so realistic- small size of the Sun and its distance from the Earth.

Ptolemy wasn't a Christian dude, he was Egyptian I think. Well, his theory ruled in the scientific communities for centuries until Copernicus, Galileo, you know the story.

And, it is not amazing that the Church was skeptic about a new theory, because the Church used to have its own astronomers. The Vatican itself is an astronomical observatory. We must remember as well, that the Church used to have not only religious power but to enjoy political influence. If the Church condemned Galileo or any other astronomer, it may be for a different reason, because the new idea that Earth revolves around the Sun was against another theory of science but not so against the religious scriptures.

The possibility that by pride -the same pride of many current science theorists- the Church decided to stop the proliferation of the new idea because the Church have been using (read "teaching") the old theory, and this may be the cause of such controversial argument showing the Church against a theory of science.
 
Galileo faced sanction by the church for putting the words of the Pope at the time in the mouth of a fool (Simplico?) in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.

.

Galileo faced sanction from the Church because he refused to teach his theories as theories and insisted as teaching them as truth. Given the evidence at the time, the Church's stance was the reasonable one. According to the scientific method - something that Catholic scientists made signigificant contributions to the development of - Galileo did NOT have enough evidence at that point for his theories to be considered scientific law.
 
Felicity wrote. Quote (I find it interesting that as major holy-days approach)

What Holy days (Major or otherwise) are you referring to?

Please please do not say Christmas, because that is simply an ancient festival signifying the end of the year.
It was hijacked by the HRCC who even suggested that Christ / Jesus was born at that time.

It is actually stated that Jesus was born at the time of Tax assessment in what is now Israel, that time happens at Easter.
The reason the HRCC took the ancient non Christian end of year festivities as a time to celebrate the birth of Jesus was because they were never able to ban the celebrations.
Why they ascribed the birth of Jesus to this time of year, was I can only presume, because most folk could not in those days read and would thus not be able to read their Bibles and thus refute the HRCC dictats.
Now what Major holy-days were you referring to?

That holy day would be Christmas. It was not a tax assessment, it was a CENSUS!
 
Galileo faced sanction from the Church because he refused to teach his theories as theories and insisted as teaching them as truth.

A scientific theory is as close to "truth" as you can get. "Theory" doesn't mean some random idea that just popped into someone's head.

ludahai said:
Given the evidence at the time, the Church's stance was the reasonable one.

Yes, threatening a man with execution for teaching the truth was a "reasonable" stance. Who in today's world would you like to see the Catholic Church execute for their words? :roll:

ludahai said:
According to the scientific method - something that Catholic scientists made signigificant contributions to the development of - Galileo did NOT have enough evidence at that point for his theories to be considered scientific law.

Baloney. Galileo had plenty of evidence; the geocentric model of the solar system had been falling apart long before Galileo came along anyway.
 
A scientific theory is as close to "truth" as you can get. "Theory" doesn't mean some random idea that just popped into someone's head.

First of all, as to the Copernican system, it was PROTESTANTS who railed against it, NOT Catholics. The Catholic Church never censured the theory or its teaching until the problems with Galileo emerged.

Galileo's initial work was actually WELCOMED by the Church. This work WEAKENED the Ptolemian system, but this was of no concern to the Church. Galileo was even ENTHUSIASTICALLY greeted by the Pope in 1611 because of his work. Jesuit astronomers were also confirming many of Galileo's discoveries. The Church wasnt hostile to Galileo's work, it was ACTIVELY SUPPORTING IT!

Pope Paul V and the Jesuits honored Galileo for his work. When he first published his evidence in support of the Copernican system, he received PRAISES from the Church, all the way up to the Pope, for his work, as well as a Cardinal who would become Pope Urban VIII. A modern scholar on the subject by the name of Jerome Langford says that the proof at this point was INSUFFICIENT to "win the allegience of open-minded men." Langford also pointed out that Jesuit astronomers had confirmed his findings.

Langford also notes that Galileo was also to blame for what later happened to him. "(he) entered the debate without sufficient proof..." It was PROTESTANTS who led charges that Galileo's theories violated the Bible, though Catholics were sensitive to those charges. However, unlike Protestants, Catholics were not closed to what these ideas signified. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine noted that "...we should proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true." Saint Albert the Great concurred with this opinion.

In 1616, the Church told Galileo that he was free to teach the ideas as a hypothesis (which is all it was at that time), and he agreed. He continued his work WITH THE SANCTION OF THE CHURCH! Eight years later, he was again received warmly by the Pope and other Church leaders. Pope Urban VIII told him that the Church had NEVER declared the Copernican system to be heretical.

Galileo published Dialogue on the Great World Systems was published in 1632 WITH THE URGING OF THE POPE! His problem was here he ignored the restrictions on teaching it as a hypothesis and posited it as an established truth (which it had NOT been at that point in time.) There is no reason to believe that he would have encountered any problems with the Church had he treated his ideas as the hypothesis that it was.

In 1633, he was declared suspected of heresy and ordered to desist from publishing. This wasn't the best decision of the Church, however, he did violate his agreement. However, to say that the Church persecuted Galileo is a grave overstatement. Catholic commentators throughout the 17th century repeated that Galileo's ideas were NOT heresy and that interpretations of Scripture were only binding on Catholics if they were agreed to at a general Church council. Catholic scientists continued to make scientific inquiries into a "moving earth" after 1633.

Yes, threatening a man with execution for teaching the truth was a "reasonable" stance. Who in today's world would you like to see the Catholic Church execute for their words? :roll:

When did the Church threaten to execute Galileo for "teaching the truth?"

Baloney. Galileo had plenty of evidence; the geocentric model of the solar system had been falling apart long before Galileo came along anyway.

But it was far from universally agreed to by educated and reasonable men of the era, as noted by Professor Langford.
 
First of all, as to the Copernican system, it was PROTESTANTS who railed against it, NOT Catholics. The Catholic Church never censured the theory or its teaching until the problems with Galileo emerged.

Galileo's initial work was actually WELCOMED by the Church. This work WEAKENED the Ptolemian system, but this was of no concern to the Church. Galileo was even ENTHUSIASTICALLY greeted by the Pope in 1611 because of his work. Jesuit astronomers were also confirming many of Galileo's discoveries. The Church wasnt hostile to Galileo's work, it was ACTIVELY SUPPORTING IT!

Pope Paul V and the Jesuits honored Galileo for his work. When he first published his evidence in support of the Copernican system, he received PRAISES from the Church, all the way up to the Pope, for his work, as well as a Cardinal who would become Pope Urban VIII. A modern scholar on the subject by the name of Jerome Langford says that the proof at this point was INSUFFICIENT to "win the allegience of open-minded men." Langford also pointed out that Jesuit astronomers had confirmed his findings.

That's all well and good. And wholly irrelevant to the fact that the Church THEN threatened to murder the man for his teachings.

ludahai said:
Langford also notes that Galileo was also to blame for what later happened to him. "(he) entered the debate without sufficient proof..."

:roll:
That sounds like blaming the rape victim for dressing provocatively. :doh
Even if that were true, it was hardly just cause to threaten to execute him.

ludahai said:
It was PROTESTANTS who led charges that Galileo's theories violated the Bible, though Catholics were sensitive to those charges. However, unlike Protestants, Catholics were not closed to what these ideas signified.

Also unlike Protestants, Catholics used the full force of a nation-state to threaten the man with death unless he recanted.

ludahai said:
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine noted that "...we should proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true." Saint Albert the Great concurred with this opinion.

In 1616, the Church told Galileo that he was free to teach the ideas as a hypothesis (which is all it was at that time), and he agreed. He continued his work WITH THE SANCTION OF THE CHURCH! Eight years later, he was again received warmly by the Pope and other Church leaders. Pope Urban VIII told him that the Church had NEVER declared the Copernican system to be heretical.

Galileo published Dialogue on the Great World Systems was published in 1632 WITH THE URGING OF THE POPE! His problem was here he ignored the restrictions on teaching it as a hypothesis and posited it as an established truth (which it had NOT been at that point in time.) There is no reason to believe that he would have encountered any problems with the Church had he treated his ideas as the hypothesis that it was.

Wonderful. This proves what exactly, regarding the Catholic Church threatening to execute him for his teachings?

ludahai said:
In 1633, he was declared suspected of heresy and ordered to desist from publishing. This wasn't the best decision of the Church, however, he did violate his agreement. However, to say that the Church persecuted Galileo is a grave overstatement.

Threatening to murder the man for his teachings - regardless as to what his agreement was, how much proof he had, or whether he was teaching it as being more certain than it actually was - sounds a lot like persecution to me. No, to say that they persecuted Galileo is a grave UNDERSTATEMENT. Harrassed, bullied, and ultimately cowed into submission would be a better description.

ludahai said:
When did the Church threaten to execute Galileo for "teaching the truth?"

Umm right after he was hauled before the Inquisition for heresy, and right before he was forced to recant his heliocentric theory.

ludahai said:
But it was far from universally agreed to by educated and reasonable men of the era, as noted by Professor Langford.

That doesn't mean that sufficient evidence didn't exist at the time to draw the conclusion. Since when are the basic rules of the universe subject to a popular vote?
 
Last edited:
Umm right after he was hauled before the Inquisition for heresy, and right before he was forced to recant his heliocentric theory.



That doesn't mean that sufficient evidence didn't exist at the time to draw the conclusion. Since when are the basic rules of the universe subject to a popular vote?

He was not killed by the Church.

I am not talking about the masses, even educated men did not entirely agree. There simply was not enough evidence AT THAT POINT in time to regard the ideas as a scientific law. The compromise agreed to by the Church and Galileo was responsible and reasonable. Galileo broke it, and in doing so, violated a prime tenant of the scientific method. You are right in that scientific law is not democratic or left up to public approval, but at the same time, you need to acquire sufficient evidence to proclaim something a law, and Galileo had simply not met the standard AT THAT TIME. Though, ironic to your point, at the time Galileo was supposedly threatened with death by the Church, Catholic scientists were actually building on Galileo's work.

Please, get all of the facts before you continue on your anti-Catholic rants.
 
Felicity wrote. Quote (I find it interesting that as major holy-days approach)

What Holy days (Major or otherwise) are you referring to?.....Now what Major holy-days were you referring to?
Happy Holidays!!!

(What the heck do you think the etymology of that word is, dingus?)
 
Galileo faced sanction from the Church because he refused to teach his theories as theories and insisted as teaching them as truth. Given the evidence at the time, the Church's stance was the reasonable one. According to the scientific method - something that Catholic scientists made signigificant contributions to the development of - Galileo did NOT have enough evidence at that point for his theories to be considered scientific law.

First: They weren't Galileo's theories. They were Copernicus and Kepler's. Galileo only taught them. He gets far too much credit for this because he got sanctioned by the church.

Second: He most definitely did have enough evidence to call it law, All observational data supported Kepler's laws of planetary motion within a Copernican system while NONE of the observable data supported the geocentric theory. What Galileo did that became undeniable proof, was observe the phases of Venus, which could ONLY happen in a Heliocentric system.

Third: He quoted Pope Urban directly with the Simplico character. During his trial, this was a big deal.



Trying to spin this as though Galileo was somehow wrong to teach it as truth is preposterous form any scientific standpoint. The evidence was very, very clear and proved that geocentricity must be false and heliocentircity must be true.

The only reason Urban fought the theory was over scripture. The reason Galileo got bitch slapped by the church, though, was the Simplico character using the Pope's favorite arguments against the theory yet being portrayed as a simple minded retard.
 
Happy Holidays!!!

(What the heck do you think the etymology of that word is, dingus?)

Did Jesus speak English?

What is the etymology of "dingus"? :mrgreen:
 
First: They weren't Galileo's theories. They were Copernicus and Kepler's. Galileo only taught them. He gets far too much credit for this because he got sanctioned by the church.

Second: He most definitely did have enough evidence to call it law, All observational data supported Kepler's laws of planetary motion within a Copernican system while NONE of the observable data supported the geocentric theory. What Galileo did that became undeniable proof, was observe the phases of Venus, which could ONLY happen in a Heliocentric system.

Third: He quoted Pope Urban directly with the Simplico character. During his trial, this was a big deal.



Trying to spin this as though Galileo was somehow wrong to teach it as truth is preposterous form any scientific standpoint. The evidence was very, very clear and proved that geocentricity must be false and heliocentircity must be true.

The only reason Urban fought the theory was over scripture. The reason Galileo got bitch slapped by the church, though, was the Simplico character using the Pope's favorite arguments against the theory yet being portrayed as a simple minded retard.

Very good interesting points.

Now please support your points by giving the source where the (religious) scripture says that the stars, the Sun, and/or the planets revolve around Earth. You can use any record available showing the position of the Church supporting the geocentric theory as the validated one only. Otherwise, I think you may be following the traffic of a common misinformation.

(By the way, the only thing I like from Catholics is that they do drink beer, wine, and hard liquor, and they dance in parties while other Christian denominations say that such things are prohibited by the New Testament. I wonder if Jesus changed water into wine in a party, or if he changed water into grape juice in a Sunday's service. :lol:)
 
Very good interesting points.

Now please support your points by giving the source where the (religious) scripture says that the stars, the Sun, and/or the planets revolve around Earth. You can use any record available showing the position of the Church supporting the geocentric theory as the validated one only. Otherwise, I think you may be following the traffic of a common misinformation.

(By the way, the only thing I like from Catholics is that they do drink beer, wine, and hard liquor, and they dance in parties while other Christian denominations say that such things are prohibited by the New Testament. I wonder if Jesus changed water into wine in a party, or if he changed water into grape juice in a Sunday's service. :lol:)

The Joshua Tree.
 
Now please support your points by giving the source where the (religious) scripture says that the stars, the Sun, and/or the planets revolve around Earth. You can use any record available showing the position of the Church supporting the geocentric theory as the validated one only. Otherwise, I think you may be following the traffic of a common misinformation.

It wasn't me that said anything about scripture supporting a geocentric universe. I said that the Church, and Pope Urban held that belief at the time. Don't place words in my mouth implying that I said Scripture says that the stars sun and planets revolve around the sun. I was only giving the doctrine of the Church at the time.

Cardinal Bellamine's letter to Father Foscarini should be enough to prove that.


Cardinal Bellarmine said:
1. It seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and not absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke. To say that on the supposition of the Earth's movement and the Sun's quiescence all the celestial appearances are explained better than by the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run no risk whatever. Such a manner of speaking suffices for a mathematician. But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the center of the universe and only rotates on its axis without travelling from east to west, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures.

Later Bellarmine invokes the Council of Trent, and how reinterpretation of the scriptures by anyone but the holy fathers was against the law.

Urban was far more simpathetic to Galileo until the release of his book where he insulted Urban. That was the turning point and why Galieo was sanctioned.

Council of Trent was used as the reason, but in truth, Urban was friendly with Glaileo beforehand. It was Galileo's arrogance that got him busted. He approached the issue in a way that almost begged for his sanctioning.
 
Back
Top Bottom