chazwin wrote:
> On Sep 2, 11:24 pm, OG
gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
> >>z wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 2, 5:18 pm, OG
gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:>>
>>>>tadchem wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Sep 2, 10:49 am, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> wrote:>>
>>>>>>Modern scientists tend to misinterpret the recent rehabilitation of
>>>>>>Galileo Galilei as indicating that Church admits that they were wrong
>>>>>>to prosecute him, at the time. This is most certainly not the the
>>>>>>case. All the Church is saying is that Galileo was not a bad person,
>>>>>>and that his writings, even his satires of the Church, no longer pose
>>>>>>any social threat.
>>
>>>>>Power Politics 101:
>>
>>>>>The first priority of those in power is to preserve that power, which
>>>>>requires intolerance of novelty and the development of reactionary
>>>>>positions on matters of policy. Acts of liberalism only serve those
>>>>>out of power. Once power has been acquired, those "acts" of
>>>>>liberalism become a smoke screen of empty (or nearly so) promises -
>>>>>lip service to preserve loyalty among the masses.
>>
>>>>>As the most powerful political force in western civilization at that
>>>>>time, the Church of Rome could ill-afford Galileo's novel ideas,
>>>>>especially as they directly contradicted established Church Doctrine.
>>
>>>>It's been a while since I read "The Sleepwalkers" by Arthur Koestler,
>>>>but as I recall, the senior church leaders were initially very receptive
>>>>to Galileo's ideas, but in his arrogance he decided that he should have
>>>>the right to lead discussion on spiritual issues as well as physical
>>>>matters.
>>
>>>>He also had some problems with attempting to use the existence of tides
>>>>as evidence in support of his motion - but as it became clear that his
>>>>explanation would only give 1 tide per day he used scorn and insult to
>>>>hide the fact that he was (in that instance at least) using a very weak
>>>>argument.
>>
>>>>I can't remember exactly how that affected things, but I suspect that
>>>>when he used bluster, insult and scorn against some of his clerical
>>>>opponents he lost the sympathy of the church leaders as a result. One of
>>>>the cardinals who he had been particularly vicious against more of less
>>>>forced the church to take action.
>>
>>>>If anyone wants to know a bit more about the development of the work of
>>>>Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo it's well worth finding the Koestler book.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>according to an article by arthur c clarke, galileo couldn't resist
>>>insulting the officials. i don't know if he's right or not, but he
>>>deserves the benefit of the doubt.
>>
>>This bit of the discussion is whether the Church condemned Galileo
>>through its intolerance of new ideas. The evidence presented by
>>Koestler suggests that the intolerance was at least as much with Galileo
>>as with the Church.
>
Lets see, Galileo was intolerant of the church, the church was
intolerant of Galileo. Who wins in that case? This is a pretty stupid
comment.
>
> This is complete bullshit!
>
>
