Galileo’s head was on the block
His crime was looking up the truth.
Those lines from an Indigo Girls song, a song I actually like a lot, display the kind of ignorance of the relationship between Science and religion that the engines of socialist revolution preach, and anti-theists swallow like free ice cream, and then spread far and wide. I call them ABG’s- people willing to believe in “Anything BUT God”
There is a common myth that the ignorant love to parrot that the Church persecuted Galileo for “being right”. Everyone believes it, and nobody questions it, but it’s dead wrong.
The famous feud actually begins with Copernicus.(1) He managed to figure out a way to make some mathematical sense of the movement of the planets, and… well, I’ll let James Burke explain it to you, he does so with great eloquence. Do watch, it’s most infotaining. You can watch the whole thing, or stop at the 3:30 mark or thereabouts.
Galileo wasn’t actually talking about anything new and revolutionary, therefore, when he published “Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo”, the tome that got him in dutch with the Church at the time. it wasn’t that the church assumed he was wrong, they already had accepted the idea of heliocentrism (Logically) but were unwilling to spring it on the public for fear that they would shake the foundations of people’s faiths. “Give us a little time” they said, “we’ll get around to it. We understand that you’re right, but you just can’t spring this on the public all at once” OK, this isn’t anything like a real quote, but.. hey, let me go to James Burke again. It’s right at the beginning of the clip, so you won’t have to watch long. One of Galileo’s sponsors and friends, Urban VIII, even went to far as to put his personal Imprimatur on Galileos earlier work, “Il Saggiatore”. (2) When Dialogo was first proposed, it wasn’t even the science of it that was questioned or disliked by the Church, it was the philosophical errors that were considered potentially heretical, and it wasn’t, frankly, until Galileo started running around mouthing off about what dumbasses everyone was who didn’t believe his thories that a WHOLE BUNCH of folks told him to www.shhhh.com. Witness this missal from Saint Robert Bellarmine: (3)
“I say to you that it seems to me that Your Reverence would act prudently to content yourselves with speaking ex suppositione [hypothetically] and not in an absolute manner, as I have always believed Copernicus spoke. For to say that you suppose the earth moves and the sun stands, all the appearances are saved better than eccentricities and reversals. This does not present any danger and is proper for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself …. is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy Faith and accusing Holy Scriptures to be false ….
“But I tell you that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was the center of the universe …., that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture that appear contrary. And we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been established.â€
In other words, just say “Hypothetically” or “theoretically” in front of what you’re saying, and you’ll be fine. He didn’t listen. From Italian author and journalist Vittorio Messori
“Galileo was not condemned for the things he said, but for the way he said them. He made statements with a sectarian intolerance, like a ‘missionary’ of a new gospel …. Since he did not have objective evidence for what he said, the things he said in his private letters to those men [of the Roman College] made him suspect of dogmatism supporting the new religion of science. One who would not immediately accept the entire Copernican system was ‘an imbecile with his head in the clouds,’ ‘a stain upon mankind,’ ‘a child who never grew up,’ and so on. At depth the certainty of being infallible seemed to belong more to him than to the religious authorityâ€*
So Galileo was put under House Arrest. Which meant…. he had to stay home. That was his punishment. Harsh, I know, but The Man really knows how to keep you down. He was murdered in his sleep by evil minions of the church died of old age at the age of 77, where the Man further punished him by… burying him in a place of honor in a cathedral (well, not at first, but eventually)
Many years later, in Vatican II, this statement was made referring(or so most think) to the Galileo incident.
““The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes, not unknown among Christians, deriving from a shortsighted view of the legitimate autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and scienceâ€
and even in our lifetime, John Paul II commented
“Like the majority of his adversaries, Galileo did not make a distinction between what is the scientific focus of the natural phenomena and the philosophical considerations about nature that generally follows itâ€(4)
1(A priest. Yes, I know, priests never contribute to science, because there is science and there is religion and never the twain shall meet, right? Actually, a good deal of early scientists WERE priests, as they were the most educated people on the planet. And they understood even then, that science and God are utterly inseperable.)
2(Imagine! A Pope helping a scientist!!)
3(he wasn’t, of course, a saint at the time)
*many quotes in this piece are taken from a website called “A swan song of Galileo’s myth”, which is not particularly gentle to the Church on the subject but is honest in it’s reporting of the facts.
4: John Paul II, L’Osservatore Romano, November 1, 1992
(yes, I still read L’osservatore Romano. You want to make something of it?)
40 comments Og | Uncategorized

Hmmmm… very satisfying, Og. Makes me love the church all the more.
Logic and reason is something us humans are capable of doing at a far greater depth than animals could ever do.
Hard Sciences such as Chemistry, Thermodynamics, and Cosmology is a mere subset of logic and reason.
The softer sciences of Psychology, Economics, and Political Science are also subsets of logic and reason.
Then there is the purely logic-constructs of Mathematics and Geometry and finally there is the non-science related activities such as Philosophy, Theology and Art(?!) which also are subsets of logic and reason. Yes Art. Even modern art if you can get the artist to bloviate on it a bit (though I suspect that you may get a aurprising education on the art of the con).
Each are activities of man and the use of logic and reason. Its a shame that the anti-theists choose to chop at the Theologians’ hypothesis on the existence of God as that is really not their field of study.
After all, even the hard sciences have their own bits of faith which allows for a variety of different constructs in their models of how the mechanistic side of the world works (hypothesis and theory).
Thanks!
Try “The Science of God” by Gerard Schroder some time. I read a 20-page pamphlet version of it, where he squares the circle of the six days of creation, and it knocked me flat on my ass for a week.
Basically, you have to read Gen. 1 from the perspective of the center of the universe. Factoring in time dilation a la Einstein, it’s been about 5.4 days at the center of things since the Big Bang — our chunk of things has moved so far out that it’s taken this long for us to catch up. Which of course then means that the seventh day, where God rests, hasn’t actually happened yet … Basically, everything that happens from Gen. 2:4 to now happens between Gen. 1:26 through 2:3. And it’s not done, either.
like I said, it knocked me on my ass. And God has become more real to me since than he has ever been before. It’s not a matter of science disproving religion, or vice versa — it’s a matter of finding how they fit together. Know when a thing is proved, and live accordingly.
Ask me some time how this affects my view of the afterlife. :-)
Those that speak the truth, seek the truth, those earning their name, know what grieving is. They search, lacking equivocation or indecision, that one bright spot of light in the dark world. Yet, they’re crucified for their search. It is a search, that with persecution, is only further refined, even as they are confounded by the abundant richess of the discernable world around them and the ways of men that they can not fathom.
I’ve studied the saints, those that pray and fast so that an idea would swell within them, growing brighter, and cleaner. Most who wish to emulate them, do not have the courage, closing the mouth to the wafer, spurning wine for dust, drawing inward into secular darkness.
What makes the seeker a saint, and what makes a saint a seeker? Is it devine guidance or just something for the body to do before it withers and becomes dust. What drives them. what drives us?
Just like revolutionaries, the great thinkers, the saints, walk open eyed into the void, seeking that hidden flame, more terrifying to those around them than those persons who only seek to extinguish it. They are not frightening for what they know but for what they do not need.
The thinker asks “What do you look for”? The saint asks “What will you die for?” The revolutionary asks, “What would you kill for.” All seek something within. All realize that sacrifice can be a futile business, as futile as history itself. Why did Galileo have to chose amongst such terrible fates, the history books ask, while we sit, only commentators until such time comes for us to make our own choice.
“Some look at things that are and ask, ‘Why?’ Some look for things that aren’t and ask, ‘Why not?’ Some of us have to go to work in the morning and don’t have time for all that crap.” — George Carlin
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Joanna – OK, you win! See you for coffee soon. I might actually get home next week.
Brigid,
To the many, who live only by what they see and not of the bigger realm of what can be perceived, the drive of the saint would seem madness – a selfless giving to nothingness that would appear to be suicidal: A mere dalliance of which only a foolish wastrel would do.
Why do the saints and visionaries and … madmen do this?
Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the snows on Kilamanjaro.
_____________________
Excelsior
The shades of night were falling fast,
As through an Alpine village passed
A youth, who bore, ‘mid snow and ice,
A banner with the strange device,
Excelsior!
His brow was sad; his eye beneath,
Flashed like a falchion from its sheath,
And like a silver clarion rung
The accents of that unknown tongue,
Excelsior!
In happy homes he saw the light
Of household fires gleam warm and bright;
Above, the spectral glaciers shone,
And from his lips escaped a groan,
Excelsior!
“Try not the Pass!” the old man said:
“Dark lowers the tempest overhead,
The roaring torrent is deep and wide!
And loud that clarion voice replied,
Excelsior!
“Oh stay,” the maiden said, “and rest
Thy weary head upon this breast!”
A tear stood in his bright blue eye,
But still he answered, with a sigh,
Excelsior!
“Beware the pine-tree’s withered branch!
Beware the awful avalanche!”
This was the peasant’s last Good-night,
A voice replied, far up the height,
Excelsior!
At break of day, as heavenward
The pious monks of Saint Bernard
Uttered the oft-repeated prayer,
A voice cried through the startled air,
Excelsior!
A traveller, by the faithful hound,
Half-buried in the snow was found,
Still grasping in his hand of ice
That banner with the strange device,
Excelsior!
There in the twilight cold and gray,
Lifeless, but beautiful, he lay,
And from the sky, serene and far,
A voice fell, like a falling star,
Excelsior!
______________________
Nicely written, as usual, Brigid. Your gift of prose is really somehting to behold.
hehe Well put, Joanna.
Douglas Adams put it (the 3 stages in the maturation of people) very well in his Hitchhikers series:
1. Who am I?
2. Why am I here?
3. What will we have for lunch.
…and as usual Brigid has #3 fully covered.
Well, what ever happened to the separation between church and laboratory, huh? Huh?! Answer *that* one, will ya? Buncha right-wing, religious freaks who believe in stuff without any rational basis. Unlike, say, Global Warming. Errr….
ZONK~!!! YOU’RE ALIVE!!!! SWEET!!!!
Heh, yeah. Hope you and yours are well.
Off-topic but after browsing thru your posts I realized I could have posted the perfect pic for “Everybody Draw Mohamed Day”…remember when you stole my camera at Klaus’ during T1G’s 40th b-day celebration? Belly pic? I still have that around here somewhere.
I’ve been asking that, myself Zonker.
What with man made global warming, life on other planets, Alien visitation, etc…, seems theres a little too much faith going on in science.
Get back to the basics, I say.
…and leave all that faith stuff to the experts (Theologians).
How about them missionaries, building schools and hospitals, what freaks.
Cond: it’s not “Faith” it’s “Belief”. There is a difference, and I have a humongous post in the works to describe that difference.
“How about them missionaries, building schools and hospitals, what freaks. ”
Yep. Assholes, all of them. Those nuns, feeding and caring for the kids I saw in Zambia, born deformed or with aids, or worse. They oughta be shot, they all have blood on their hands.
Maybe it’s the people I go to church with that have the blood on their hands; upright citizens who contribute to their community through their involvement with the church, maybe it’s them that have the blood on their hands. Maybe it’s me… no, thats maybe not such a good example.
Coolie.
I knew if I waited long enough you’ld start posting that stuff again.
I’m just trying to tweak the anti-theists at the moment is, all…. ;)
(and you are correct about my blurred distinction between faith and belief)
yeah, the two are used most often interchangeably, but Faith is what I have in my Creator, and Belief is what Algore does to AGW.
I really look forward to the post, Og. Take your time. I don’t mind waitng.
Zonk, if you would stop by here, I’d be happy to let you draw mahomet on my bulging gut and photograph it
Those damn foreigners who rescued a bunch of orphan kids from becoming the fodder of human sacrifice at a remote jungle site – then they had to educate them so they could find work to survive even longer and keep taking-up space on the planet!
Og- Millwright, philosopher, crapblogger(some overlap). Look ye upon his works and despair!
That was very enlightening Og, Thanks. Never really knew much about this topic.
I’m watching through the series of videos right now.
cond0010,
“What with man made global warming, life on other planets, Alien visitation, etc…, seems theres a little too much faith going on in science.”
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
How many legs does a dog have if it’s made in a labratory by a freak mad scientist who wants to have a furry centipede?
Trick question, Tam.
Its best for me to leave no answer (yet the ‘answer’ I am giving now is out of polite respect to you).
I think all Tam is saying is that there’s no more room for “Faith” in science than a tail can be called a leg.
Lots of Junk Science out there, Og. Many times there are people who use science as their religion.
I’ve heard/read her question before in a variety of different permutations and found the results to of answering such a question to result in confrontation.
I prefer not to go there with Tam.
“Lots of Junk Science out there, Og. Many times there are people who use science as their religion.”
So fluorescent lights won’t save the polar bears?
Indeed. The polar bears, when their ice floes melt….
…swim to others that are not melting, because they love the water. And hate fluorescent lights.
og,
“I think all Tam is saying is that there’s no more room for “Faith†in science than a tail can be called a leg.”
No, I’m saying that there are a lot of things out there that are called “science” that are nothing of the sort.
If cond0010 wants to call, and I quote, “Alien visitation” science, that’s up to him, but calling a leg a tail don’t necessarily make it so, okay?
Of course they hate fluorescent lights, they make them look fat.
And here’s the problem with this whole stupid line of discussion:
“How many centimeters long is love?“
Hit post before I read both comments, so let me modify this to say:
“No, I’m saying that there are a lot of things out there that are called “science†that are nothing of the sort.”
yes, they are “beliefs” Long and annoying post to follow.
Never mind, then. I thought we were talking about something else.
Apologies, tam, corrected.
Missed your other point.
Smartas answer: Don’t know about love, but lust is about 22 cm long.
I told her your answer would likely be +/- 20% of 20 cm.
As for the other stuff — we don’t even speak the same language. I’m not gonna tweak you more than that on your own blog.
“If cond0010 wants to call, and I quote, “Alien visitation†science, that’s up to him,”
I’m not calling it science, Tam. Never did.
I am saying that there are people who believe this based on ‘data’ collected and use ‘science as their cover (thus the religious overtones). Frankly they watch too much Star Trek.
Yet there are people – yes, even scientists and … atheists and anti-theists… who have taken the leap over the edge into this stupidity.
Though Carl Sagan may not have made the leap to ‘teh cazy’ in regards to ‘alien visitation’, he has made the leap about ‘life on other planets’ and in other parts of the universe. So… where are they? Where is the proof? That is a belief based off of Science and at this point, utterly rediculous as there is not one shread of evidence of ‘life’ being anywhere else. I have two words to all those ‘Scinetists’ who have this belief: Fermi’s Paradox.
There are also people who believe that the Twin Towers collapse was a controlled detonation and that the moon landings were faked and they use ‘Science’ (junk science, mind you) to prove it.
______
“but calling a leg a tail don’t necessarily make it so, okay?”
Rubbish query. More data please.
______
““How many centimeters long is love?“
You need to read up on linguistics. There are many divergent definitions to the word ‘love’. Same with ‘freedom’. How about ‘style’? Or ‘Value’?
Further, even though these words have large qualitative factors, there are also quantitative factors to each – depending on what patterns the given researcher is trying to perceive (thus creating a logical construct called and hypothesis or theory). Otherwise softer sciences such as Psychology, Economics and Political Science would not exist.
Think the Hard Sciences are so ‘pure’ and rational? HA! Try predicting the weather. Here’s Dr. Hansimian and his prediction of hurricane season for this year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faDJzjbTfd4
Sadly, you view is a bit too black and white, Tam. A bit to proud of the ‘Hard Sciences’. Do try to open you mind just a bit.
“Don’t know about love, but lust is about 22 cm long. ”
Congratulations. You are in the top 3%.
http://www.yourtango.com/200927078/fun-facts-about-penis-size
Don’t know.
But this thread is definitely in grave danger of evoking an internet law similiar Godwins Law – though more on the level of Deep-Throat and Ron-Jeremy.
Anyone have a name for it or will this become ‘Ogs Law’?
Aw, crap, I thought I’d heard the last of Ms G. Damn.
Rx: You are not capable of tweaking me, trust me.
look: contrary to your fears, I’m not trying to “Convert” you to anything. I don’t even care how fervent your belief that the Church be evil, you are free, as I have said repeatedly, to believe what you want- though as I have tried to point out above, you might want to examine why you’d want to “believe” anything, for my part, I do not.
When you make a statement like “who was it imprisioned Galileo anwyay” you display a childlike ignorance of a remarkably complex subject. The bottomline was, as described above, galileo’s own big mouth imprisoned him. The members of the Catholic church at the time weren’t even his jailors, he just went home.
Different language? Indeed. I try very hard to speak a language of respect for decent people of all stripe. You have proven yourself incapable of anything but hatred and denegration. Do it on your own blog; I won’t de-link you, anyone who wants can visit from here, I’m neither petty nor nasty in that respect. But I will not tolerate that behavior here, and I cannot countenance it elsewhere; to do so without speaking up endangers my soul.