One Sided Treatment of the Galileo Issue?

Would you say that the treatment in popular literature about Galileo is somewhat onesidded in its criticism of the Church and near deification of Galileo?Galileo. This one name should send shivers down the spine of the religious establishment because even more than the Wilberforce/Huxley debate, or the film 'Inherit the Wind,' the very mention of the name Galileo inspires in many the views of the intolerant religious pitted against scientific discoveries. We are to view Galileo as occupying the "wide, sunlit, high ground of reason and observation, free from the obstructionist dogma and superstition (30)" of the Church. Once again, religious intolerance is pitted against scientific discovery, but once again, what is popularly believed to be true, and what really happened are two different things.Sampson of 'Six Modern Myths' (Downer's Grove, IL: IVP, 2001) writes:
"The Galileo story is driven by the myth that there is an enduring opposition between religion and science. It tiells of a modern world based on science and technological process. By contrast, religion is based on faith rather than reason, and leads to superstition rather than science, to oppression rather than democracy. (29)"Historian William Shea wrutes that "Galileo's condemnation was the result of complex interplay of untoward political circumstances, political ambition and wounded pride." No doubt we forget that Galileo described his point of view as 'divinely inspired' and that or his opponents as 'contrary to Scripture.' In fact, the Book that led to Galileo's trial 'Dialogue concerning the Chief World Systems,' was one in which two characters debated heliocentrism.
The character opposing Galileo's heleocentrism was
called 'Simplicio,' a play on the word 'Simpleton.' Simplicio is portrayed as a simpleton, and toward the end of the dialogue Galileo inserts into the mouth of Simplicio the favored argument of Pope Urban VIII and then proceeded to mercilessly mock it. This was not a wise move, but it does show that the conflict was more than mere scientific progress versus religious intolerance.

​

Luther Maher

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

In a word, no.In the 20th century, the RC church finally exonerated Galileo. That leaves a long time where they refused to admit a mistake. The Church deserves all of the criticism it has received.

Near deification? Do you mean that you believe Galileo is esteemed in some different and inappropriate manner as compared to how we think of Einstein, Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, etc.I agree that Galileo tweaked the nose, so to speak, of existing authorities during a period when the political and ecclesiastical were combined, and that his troubles were largely due to his lack of discretion. The church would not have treated him so harshly had it not felt embarrassed and publicly mocked.But whatever the realities of a "complex interplay of untoward political circumstances, political ambition and wounded pride", one fact remains: The Inquisition condemned Galileo for scientific views that it deemed incorrect because they conflicted with their interpretation of Biblical accounts. Its view was that science was subordinate to their Biblical interpretations. This was a perfectly reasonable view for period, given that science was still in its infancy, but it became increasingly embarrassing over time as science demonstrated its proficiency at describing the world accurately, and as the correctness of the heliocentric view was established as unquestionably true.The Copernican revolution had to wait until the deaths of both its namesake and of Galileo, but it wasn't many years before it became clear that the interpretation of the church was incorrect. Had the Inquisition found Galileo guilty of the equivalent of gross insubordination instead of heresy they wouldn't have had a problem, but after more than 300 years the church finally decided to correct the mistake of having condemned Galileo for only stating what the evidence showed to be the case.--Percy

If the issue was just internal Catholic politics, then why was Copernicism condemned by Protestants?"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" --- John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis"This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." --- Martin Luther."Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it." --- Melanchthon.Some of them are still at it."The primordial enemy, however, who entered Eden so soon after God opened up scientific inquiry by bringing Adam the animals to see what he would call them (Gen. 2:19), was fully aware of heliocentricity's potential for destroying the Faith by attacking the inerrancy of Scripture." *Peculiar, isn't it, how 4 1/2 centuries of indoctrination into factless Copernicanism continues to insert the "rotating earth" mantra into the most unlikely news stories 24/7? Peculiar too, isn't it, that the powers behind this lie are so confident of their academia and media enforced control over people's minds that "scientists" can come out within hours of this tragedy and claim that this quake has speeded up the earth's rotation by three millionths of a second (!) and as caused the earth to "wobble" off its "axis" by one inch (out of 506,880,000 inches!)?? This insult to intelligence was backed by NASA "scientist" Richard Gross and a dozen other "heavies" (Aren't you just a little bit tired of being taken for a sap by these mind-control clowns who would stoop to using this unspeakable tragedy to reinforce their evolutionary agenda in the unsuspecting minds of millions via the world media? Shameful...) ... This "comprehensive materialist cosmology" is what Creationists today are up against and, excepting a handful, they do not know it! Evolutionism does NOT stand alone as a Bible-wrecking, contra- scientific deception about origins, Satanically conceived. Oh no! Evolutionism is historically, philosophically, scientifically, and spiritually WEDDED TO a previously conceived Bible-wrecking, contra-scientific deception about origins called Copernicanism! Creationists can never successfully protect and advance Biblical Creationism by standing against the false science counterfeit of the Origin of life on Earth and at the same time ignore the false science counterfeit of the Origin of the universe founded on the Copernican premise!" *"To promote the truth of our Earth being at rest in the centre of the observable Universe as a first step in Christian apologetics is in fact the only reason why I defend the Tychonian theory." *"I maintain that the strict creationists’ defense of the Bible’s inspired account of the creation of Heaven and Earth is half-hearted and logically crippled. Rejecting godless Darwinian evolution for the Earth’s biosphere they accept the equally unproven and unprovable Copernican astronomy as “proven” with respect to the observable Heaven surrounding us. And the stranglehold of this misapprehension on these Christians’ minds is, sad to relate, strong." *---This, clearly, isn't about the internal politics of the Catholic church in the seventeenth century. It's about Biblical literalism versus science.Really the whole Galileo affair shoud have laid to rest the notion that one can use the Bible as a science textbook. But, to quote George Santayana: "Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."Edited by Dr Adequate, : Fixed tags.

I dunno, Dr A, but I'm inclined to call "parody" on that "fixedearth.com" website. No one, and I mean even the most rabidly ignorant, back-woods, 3rd-grade-education, carpet-chewing fundy would buy that stuff. It appears the author merely rehashed a bunch of PRATTs and threw in some really out-there rhetoric to come up with a complete spoof of the entire Biblical Literalist position.Anyone know anything about that site?

I don't think it's a parody, and I think the author is just a complete whacko. He is way too self-righteous/conspiracy theory oriented to pass off as a parody. I've heard similar nutcases on AM radio.Now Objective:jesussaveus was a great parody.Some of my research was actually highlighted by fixedearth (http://www.fixedearth.com/Phosphorus,%20All%20Hail!.htm), and I'm proud to be one of the black-flag carrying members of evolutionism. I've used that in one or two of my talks too, .

Probably not parody.While I love that area and there is a great little place to get breakfast in Clevland and the Unicoi Lodge was one of my favorite places to hold classes or meetings, it is also pretty well populated with some unique folk. Hall has been around awhile and even AIG thought he was just pulling a parody.Ever see the movie Deliverance?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sadly, I think you may be right. My confidence in the intelligence of my fellow man has just fallen another 20 points. This is truly scary.

hi all.
One sided alright. The Aristotelian scientists of his time had beef with him and Galileo had one with the Pope Urban VIII who had bad reputation for being mean. So what doya think of that.The stories we hear aboutGalileo seem to be based on assumptions and bias against the church and not real history.

Sorry i messed up the links and put them in as quotes .So here they are. The Galileo Affair: History or Heroic Hagiography? | Answers in Genesis Missing Link | Answers in Genesis I am starting to get the hang of this, I think.Edited by Frog, : incompleteEdited by Frog, : no changes

I think Answers In Genesis is a less reliable source than the Brothers Grimm.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I think you should try and avoid extensive cut and pastes from other web sites. If you think there is a case to be made then make it yourself. References should be used to support your argument not instead of an argument.TTFN,AW