> tadams...@yahoo.com 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.

>

>>>http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801299.htm

>

>>>...
>>>Jesuit Father Sabino Maffeo, the Vatican Observatory's vice director
>>>for administration, told CNS that Galileo ran into trouble with the
>>>Holy Office because he did not have proof for his claims.

>

>>>"Not having proof ... (the Holy Office) was forced to hold on to the
>>>centuries-old concept" that saw Earth as the center of the cosmos, he
>>>said.

>

>>>If he had had proof, which did not come for another 100 years with
>>>discoveries made by Isaac Newton, Galileo's fate could have been much
>>>different, Father Maffeo said. He added that Italian Cardinal Robert
>>>Bellarmine, who was part of the 17th-century Vatican commission that
>>>admonished Galileo not to hold or defend the Copernican theory, had
>>>told Galileo "the day in which you bring a demonstration then we will
>>>have to look at how sacred Scripture gets interpreted differently,
>>>but
>>>as long as there is no proof, we will continue to interpret
>>>(Scripture) literally as we have all along."

>

>>>...

>

>>>What would have happened if the Church had not prosecuted or censured
>>>Galileo?  Would Newton have had the same incentive to develop his
>>>comprehensive Copernican explanation of the Universe?  Would society
>>>have been destabilized by lack of faith in the Church and conventional
>>>social order?

>

>>>What implications does this example have for modern Church criticisms
>>>of scientific theories such as Evolution and the Big Bang?  Does the
>>>Church, or other social institutions have some role in integating
>>>scientific concepts into the broader social perspective?  Was Galileo
>>>a kind of idiot-savant, not understanding how to fully develop his own
>>>ideas?  Is this a common problem among scientists in general, who are
>>>not holistic thinkers, however skilled they may be in their own
>>>speciality?

>

>> If I understand Jerry correctly, he is just saying that the Church use
>> to put a high penalty on exposing a scientific theory with inadequate
>> proof.

>

>> Standards have certainly declined since the 17th Century.  These days,
>> a scientist would get nothing more than a rejection letter for his
>> paper if proof was substandard.

>

>> Contrast this with the treatment of Giordano Bruno.  Unlike Galileo,
>> Bruno refused to fully recant on his support of Copernicus'
>> Heliocentric Theory and he claimed that the Sun was just another star
>> in infinite space.  After his conviction at the Inquisition in Rome,
>> his jaw was clamped shut with a iron gag, his tongue was pierced with
>> an iron spike, and another was driven into his palate.  Then he was
>> burned at the stake.

>
> According to Jerry, this probably because he misspelled something and
> that, of course, justified his treatment and he should have been
> happy that they treated him so leniently.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -