Pope praises Galileo's astronomy

That being said, I truly believe that far too many people impugn Catholicism over this, especially considering the theory was created by a Catholic Monk.

independent_thinker2002 said:

Did Jesus speak English?

What is the etymology of "dingus"? :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

I just thought "dingus" was funny.:mrgreen:

Tucker Case said:

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.

Click to expand...

If Galileo had published it as a hypothesis, he would have been absolutely fine. He didn't. While the Church over-reacted (though not to the extent that has been claimd on here), Galileo should have been a bit more diplomatic in his approach.

ludahai said:

He was not killed by the Church.

Click to expand...

I didn't say he was. Do you deny that the Church threatened him with execution because of what he was saying? How is that not persecution again?

ludahai said:

I am not talking about the masses, even educated men did not entirely agree.

Click to expand...

Still irrelevant. The laws of physics are not subject to a popular vote, even if the voters are all "educated men." Galileo had sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion. Copernicus' evidence had been available for nearly a century; Kepler had published his evidence a couple decades prior to Galileo's trial. The Arabs had the evidence centuries earlier.

ludahai said:

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.

Click to expand...

Umm I think you need to read up on what the scientific method is. It has nothing to do with whether or not you teach something as a "theory" or a "fact" (which are basically the same thing). It certainly has nothing to do with whether or not you renege on an agreement with the Catholic Church.

The scientific method is about making a hypothesis, developing an experiment, interpreting the results of that experiment, and refining the hypothesis until no other valid hypotheses exist.

ludahai said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but again, it's wholly irrelevant to the fact that he was threatened with death due to his teachings.

ludahai said:

Please, get all of the facts before you continue on your anti-Catholic rants.

Click to expand...

The fact that you are defending the Catholic Church on one of the ugliest periods in its history is absolutely disgusting.

Kandahar said:

I didn't say he was. Do you deny that the Church threatened him with execution because of what he was saying? How is that not persecution again?

Click to expand...

He was put under house arrest, not killed. Again, I have already said that this was an over-reaction on the part of the church. However, it wasn't even because of WHAT he said but HOW he presented it.

Still irrelevant. The laws of physics are not subject to a popular vote, even if the voters are all "educated men." Galileo had sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion. Copernicus' evidence had been available for nearly a century; Kepler had published his evidence a couple decades prior to Galileo's trial. The Arabs had the evidence centuries earlier.

Click to expand...

Even modern scholars of that era of history note that there wasn't enough corroborating evidence to present the theory as law. Had he presented it as a hypothesis that was still under investigation (an investigation that many Catholic scientists were taking part in) he would have had no problems at all.

Umm I think you need to read up on what the scientific method is. It has nothing to do with whether or not you teach something as a "theory" or a "fact" (which are basically the same thing). It certainly has nothing to do with whether or not you renege on an agreement with the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

There is something about having sufficient corroborating evidence, something that many scholars of that period of history say was not present in sufficient quantity until decades later.

The scientific method is about making a hypothesis, developing an experiment, interpreting the results of that experiment, and refining the hypothesis until no other valid hypotheses exist.

Click to expand...

It also needs to be replicated and sufficiently corroborated.

That's all well and good, but again, it's wholly irrelevant to the fact that he was threatened with death due to his teachings.

Click to expand...

His troubles had to do with HOW, now WHAT, he did. That included the way he used the words of the Pope in his book. Not only do I find no credible evidence that Galileo's life was ever in danger as a result of this controversy, Pope Urban actually tried to provide some support for Galileo during the crisis.

The fact that you are defending the Catholic Church on one of the ugliest periods in its history is absolutely disgusting.

Click to expand...

The fact that people overstate what the Church allegedly did and use this as evidence that the Church was somehow "anti-science" is absolutely disgusting.