> On Sep 8, 1:24 pm, doug
xx.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.
>>
>>
>>>>...
>>>>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 -
>
>
> Seriously, I have read that Peter Waldo (founder of the Waldesians)
> was condemned in his Inquisition because he used the wrong verb tense!
I certainly understand that. Maybe we should retroactively go through
and find more cases to put to the inquisition. Jerry does not like
the way I make sentences so he will probably nominate me as well.
