Hercules and Jesus

[Giordano]

Given my forum name, I feel that I should offer my own views of Bruno. I don't see him as a martyr to science- I see him as a martyr to the freedom of thought. Many of his views as to the nature of reality were wrong from a scientific sense, others were correct for the right reasons, and yet others were correct but for the wrong reasons. He relied more on philosophy than physical science (if only because the era did not permit him to rely primarily on physical experiments and data). Nonetheless he pioneered several crucial overall concpets, such as arguing against the Earth being viewed as fundamentally and inherently different from the rest of the Universe. That was a major insight that dramatically helped spur our subsequent understanding of the physical universe.

But even if Bruno was wrong in specific conclusions, he clearly was willing to think for himself and not feel locked into the thoughts permitted by the authorities, religious or secular. He was burned to death for his audacity in this regard- his belief that he had a right to form his own views of the world even if they went against the views of the Church. That's good enough for me to value him and to see him as a martyr to the concept of reasoning as an inherent right people should have.

I've seen the statue to him in Rome in the square in which he was burnt to death and I was moved by it. An interesting form of apology!

 

[TimONeill2]

Given my forum name, I feel that I should offer my own views of Bruno. I don't see him as a martyr to science- I see him as a martyr to the freedom of thought.

He is a perfectly reasonable symbol of freedom of thought. I only ever argue against the idea that he represented some kind of conflict between religion and science or that he was a martyr for science.

I've seen the statue to him in Rome in the square in which he was burnt to death and I was moved by it. An interesting form of apology!

The statue was set up by Freemasons in a period of anti-Church political fervour and deliberately faces toward St Peters. It was not a form of apology, it was a form of political statement.

 

[Giordano]

He is a perfectly reasonable symbol of freedom of thought. I only ever argue against the idea that he represented some kind of conflict between religion and science or that he was a martyr for science.



The statue was set up by Freemasons in a period of anti-Church political fervour and deliberately faces toward St Peters. It was not a form of apology, it was a form of political statement.

I know that- I didn't mean to imply that it was an apology sponsored by the Church. I am using the term "apology" in much the same way I would apologize to the descendants of Native Americans in the USA- neither I nor my family was here at the time, so it is not a personal apology, but an "apology" (a publicly expressed regret?? a statement recognizing the original action was wrong???) for the historical occurrence of reprehensible acts committed by others (often others having some diffuse connection to the person offering the apology, i.e. an American or Italian citizen).

 

[Craig B]

I know that- IO didn't mean to imply that it was an apology sponsored by the Church. I am using the term "apology" in much the same way I would apologize to the descendants of Native Americans in the USA- neither I nor my family was here at the time, so it is not a personal apology, but an "apology" (a publicly expressed regret?? a statement recognizing the original action was wrong???) for the historical occurrence of reprehensible acts committed by others (often others having some diffuse connection to the person offering the apology, i.e. an American or Italian citizen).

It was a stinging, and in my opinion justified, reprimand directed against the Papacy.

 

[Giordano]

He is a perfectly reasonable symbol of freedom of thought. I only ever argue against the idea that he represented some kind of conflict between religion and science or that he was a martyr for science.


The statue was set up by Freemasons in a period of anti-Church political fervour and deliberately faces toward St Peters. It was not a form of apology, it was a form of political statement.

I think we are mostly on the same page, but for the reasons I cited above, I still see Bruno as representing a conflict behind the fundamentally different views science and religion have as to freedom of thought and one's right to form one's one view. Science is fueled by the concept that people should ask questions on their own and evaluate ideas on their own. Religion emphasizes faith and belief in specific ideologies- it does not encourage people to form their own opinions or to doubt/test the core beliefs of the religion.

I therefore also still see Bruno as a martyr to Science with an uppercase S, in that he was defending a core of what has become the scientific method. But he was not a martyr to science (lower case s) in terms of being correct about all his specific theories.

 

[Giordano]

It was a stinging, and in my opinion justified, reprimand directed against the Papacy.

Justified, yes. Free Masons- part of the NWO conspiracy too?

 

[Craig B]

Justified, yes. Free Masons- part of the NWO conspiracy too?

On 20 April 1884, Pope Leo XIII published the encyclical Humanum genus. As a response, the Freemasons decided to create a statue of the pantheist Giordano Bruno.

Humanum genus^WP denounces these principles, which it attributes to the Freemasons.

22. Then come their doctrines of politics, in which the naturalists lay down that all men have the same right, and are in every respect of equal and like condition; that each one is naturally free; that no one has the right to command another; that it is an act of violence to require men to obey any authority other than that which is obtained from themselves. According to this, therefore, all things belong to the free people; power is held by the command or permission of the people, so that, when the popular will changes, rulers may lawfully be deposed and the source of all rights and civil duties is either in the multitude or in the governing authority when this is constituted according to the latest doctrines. It is held also that the State should be without God; that in the various forms of religion there is no reason why one should have precedence of another; and that they are all to occupy the same place.​

So the statue is a welcome response. Not that I have much time for Freemasonry; but the principles denounced in the Encyclical are admirable ones, promoted not by Freemasons alone.

 

[TimONeill2]

I therefore also still see Bruno as a martyr to Science with an uppercase S, in that he was defending a core of what has become the scientific method. But he was not a martyr to science (lower case s) in terms of being correct about all his specific theories.

I understand your point, but still think it's a bit of a rhetorical stretch. Bruno rejected pretty much all elements of the natural philosophy of the time that we would regard as scientific and embraced all the parts that we would find weirdly mystical. He chided Copernicus for his faith in mathematics, preferring to use insight instead. He confidently claimed his baseless opinions on the relative sizes of the planets would be vindicated by "the geometers" (they weren't, because he was dead wrong). Basically he was most analogous to Deepak Chopra rather than Neil deGrasse Tyson, which is why I find it ironic that I keep coming across New Atheists using him as an example of the Church hating science. He had nothing much to do with science at all.

 

[Craig B]

I Basically he was most analogous to Deepak Chopra rather than Neil deGrasse Tyson, which is why I find it ironic that I keep coming across New Atheists using him as an example of the Church hating science. He had nothing much to do with science at all.

Does this have anything to do with science?

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.​

That's from Galileo's sentence, of course. I think Bruno's has been lost. Is that correct?

 

[TimONeill2]

Does this have anything to do with science?

Yes, it does. Largely in that it correctly states the scientific consensus of the time - that Galileo was wrong and that Copernican heliocentrism was incorrect. That's what it means by "absurd in philosophy". I have no idea what this has to do with Bruno though.

That's from Galileo's sentence, of course.

Yes.

I think Bruno's has been lost. Is that correct?

It has. But we can be certain he was not charged over anything to do with heliocentrism. We know this because if he had been the Galileo trial would have been quite different and much shorter. The Roman Inquisition worked on precendent and case law and given that Bruno's trial had been just 16 or so years earlier and both it and Galileo's were presided over by Cardinal Bellarmine, if Bruno had been condemned for some heresy regarding heliocentrism the 1616 trial would simply have referred to that ruling.

But it didn't.

This means no ruling had been made on that issue and so it was no part of Bruno's condemnation. He was executed for the other things he said, all of which were purely theological.

 

[Giordano]

I understand your point, but still think it's a bit of a rhetorical stretch. Bruno rejected pretty much all elements of the natural philosophy of the time that we would regard as scientific and embraced all the parts that we would find weirdly mystical. He chided Copernicus for his faith in mathematics, preferring to use insight instead. He confidently claimed his baseless opinions on the relative sizes of the planets would be vindicated by "the geometers" (they weren't, because he was dead wrong). Basically he was most analogous to Deepak Chopra rather than Neil deGrasse Tyson, which is why I find it ironic that I keep coming across New Atheists using him as an example of the Church hating science. He had nothing much to do with science at all.

And of course I think you are stretching your own point. Bruno was not burned for being wrong; he was burned for daring to think about stuff and making his own decisions, wrong or right. It is hardly as if the Church was on the side of Copernicus and was only angry that Bruno did not accept Copernicus's math. The Church initially rejected both because they contradicted the centrality of pure Faith in the Church's teachings, not due to the specifics of what each concluded.

Sure Bruno was primarily a mystic and not a natural scientist. But I view him broadly as a freedom fighter trying to crack open a dictatorial hierarchy and create a more democratic environment for the freedom of thought. I can respect many such people even if their own views are not the same as mine or even are demonstrably erroneous. Oddly I must have a strange tendency to visit places in Europe associated with burnt martyrs. I also saw in England where Bishop Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimar were burned to death for their "heresies." Although I don't agree with their teachings, I do deeply respect their willingness to continue to advocate to the death their own views even if some were in opposition to the then official views of the Church. You probably know of the quote attributed to Latimar at the time of their execution:
"Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."

 

[Craig B]

Yes, it does. Largely in that it correctly states the scientific consensus of the time - that Galileo was wrong and that Copernican heliocentrism was incorrect. That's what it means by "absurd in philosophy". I have no idea what this has to do with Bruno though.

When natural philosophers in those days correctly (you really are incapable of criticising the Church, aren't you) stated the prevailing consensus, was it their custom to suppress dissenting opinions? Was the Church correct to do that, to place their author in confinement, and to suppress free discussion of the matter for more than a century?

Was the "scientific consensus" correctly stated by the Church unchanged throughout this time?

In 1758 the Catholic Church dropped the general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism from the Index of Forbidden Books It did not, however, explicitly rescind the decisions issued by the Inquisition in its judgement of 1633 against Galileo, or lift the prohibition of uncensored versions of Copernicus's De Revolutionibus or Galileo's Dialogue. The issue finally came to a head in 1820 ...​

 

[TimONeill2]

And of course I think you are stretching your own point. Bruno was not burned for being wrong; he was burned for daring to think about stuff and making his own decisions, wrong or right. It is hardly as if the Church was on the side of Copernicus and was only angry that Bruno did not accept Copernicus's math.

There is no evidence that Coperncius or math were part of the issue in any way. They were rather more interested in things like his views on the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation and Transubstantiation. As I've said, Bruno is a figure of free speech given he was killed for his views on these matters, but how this has anything to do with science I have no idea.

The Church initially rejected both because they contradicted the centrality of pure Faith in the Church's teachings, not due to the specifics of what each concluded.

The Church rejected Bruno's ideas because, not surprisingly, they didn't agree that they needed to reshape the whole Catholic faith to conform to his PERSOANL beliefs about (supposed) ancient Egyptian mystic insights. They (eventually) rejected Copernicus because that was the scientific consensus of the time and his system contradicted traditional interpretations of scripture.

But I view him broadly as a freedom fighter trying to crack open a dictatorial hierarchy and create a more democratic environment for the freedom of thought.

And I think that is anachronistically projecting modern ideals onto the past. I can see nothing in Bruno's writing that favoured democratic ideals. On the contrary - he was completely dismissive of anyone who simply didn't listen to and accept what Giordano Bruno declared. He was as dogmatic as the rest of his age. We have to be careful not to reshape the past in our projected image.

 

[Craig B]

They (eventually) rejected Copernicus because that was the scientific consensus of the time and his system contradicted traditional interpretations of scripture.

And the same motives caused them to condemn Galileo. I'll let Pope John Paul II express his opinion about that.

The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.... —  L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) – November 4, 1992​

And he's right to call that an error. In doing so John Paul was not "anachronistically projecting modern ideals onto the past."

As the Church sustained its condemnation of Galileo and Copernicus long after the scientific consensus had shifted, we must assume that the predominant motive for it was not scientific, but scriptural.

 

[Giordano]

There is no evidence that Coperncius or math were part of the issue in any way. They were rather more interested in things like his views on the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation and Transubstantiation. As I've said, Bruno is a figure of free speech given he was killed for his views on these matters, but how this has anything to do with science I have no idea.



The Church rejected Bruno's ideas because, not surprisingly, they didn't agree that they needed to reshape the whole Catholic faith to conform to his PERSOANL beliefs about (supposed) ancient Egyptian mystic insights. They (eventually) rejected Copernicus because that was the scientific consensus of the time and his system contradicted traditional interpretations of scripture.



And I think that is anachronistically projecting modern ideals onto the past. I can see nothing in Bruno's writing that favoured democratic ideals. On the contrary - he was completely dismissive of anyone who simply didn't listen to and accept what Giordano Bruno declared. He was as dogmatic as the rest of his age. We have to be careful not to reshape the past in our projected image.

In February 1615 the Cathalics Church charged Galileo with heresy for agreeing with the Copercian proposal that the Earth moved, expressly because this theory contradicted specific versus in the bible. This was after Copernicus himself, but clearly demonstrates the displeasure the Church had and came to have with Copercian theory, whatever they actually publically charged Copercius with. In any case their charges of heresy against Bruno were not because Bruno was himself opposing some of Copernicus's theories.

I find the apologetics that appear from time to time in an attempt to minimize the horror of the Church's historic actions against scientist and other, religious non-conformists amusing. "It is a lie that The church tortured heretics during the Inquisition!" True, they turned the heretics over to the subservient political authorities who were expected to do the actual torture and keep the hands of the Church clean of the actual deed "The Church never was angry with Galileo for his scientific theories; only because he stated them in too nastyor public a manner!" Sure...

These all try to hide the fact that the Church was deeply involved for many centuries in torturing and killing people for having non-conformist person views. They burned people at the stake just as a result of their opinions. To try to make this seem better by saying that it was not for big things but for more minor transgressions is not a great way of justifying these actions.

 

[The Big Dog]

In February 1615 the Cathalics Church charged Galileo with heresy for agreeing with the Copercian proposal that the Earth moved, expressly because this theory contradicted specific versus in the bible. This was after Copernicus himself, but clearly demonstrates the displeasure the Church had and came to have with Copercian theory, whatever they actually publically charged Copercius with. In any case their charges of heresy against Bruno were not because Bruno was himself opposing some of Copernicus's theories.

I find the apologetics that appear from time to time in an attempt to minimize the horror of the Church's historic actions against scientist and other, religious non-conformists amusing. "It is a lie that The church tortured heretics during the Inquisition!" True, they turned the heretics over to the subservient political authorities who were expected to do the actual torture and keep the hands of the Church clean of the actual deed "The Church never was angry with Galileo for his scientific theories; only because he stated them in too nastyor public a manner!" Sure...

These all try to hide the fact that the Church was deeply involved for many centuries in torturing and killing people for having non-conformist person views. They burned people at the stake just as a result of their opinions. To try to make this seem better by saying that it was not for big things but for more minor transgressions is not a great way of justifying these actions.

Say, that "sure" is a nuanced analysis of the Galileo controversy.

 

[TimONeill2]

When natural philosophers in those days correctly (you really are incapable of criticising the Church, aren't you) stated the prevailing consensus, was it their custom to suppress dissenting opinions?

The parenthesis in that sentence is very weird. I emphasise that the formulation “absurd in philosophy” correctly noted the scientific consensus of the time because this is key to understanding what happened. That’s what historians do – try to work out what happened and to understand why. They leave “criticism” of people in the remote past to those with modern biases and ideological axes to grind. That stuff usually gets in the way of the objective analysis of history.

And no, they didn’t suppress dissenting opinions. The Church usually didn’t do so either, as evidenced by the fact that they didn’t supress Copernicus’ ideas when they first came to public attention, a whole century before the Galileo case (in fact, he was actively encouraged by several leading churchmen and by the Pope of the time). The reason they turned their attention to this one is that it intersected with a question of theology that was a hot topic at the time – who should be allowed to interpret scripture? And it was Galileo’s dabbling in the interpretation of scripture, first in his Letter to the Grand Duchess and then in his Letter to Castelli, that kicked the whole affair off. But this is a level of critical contextual detail which New Atheist polemicists, in their eagerness to “criticise”, usually don’t bother to acquaint themselves.

Was the Church correct to do that, to place their author in confinement, and to suppress free discussion of the matter for more than a century?

“Correct”? By whose standards? You keep getting tangled up in invalid value judgements and the presentist fallacy.

Was the "scientific consensus" correctly stated by the Church unchanged throughout this time?

When the consensus shifted – which was almost a century later, they changed their view. As Bellarmine had said, way back in 1615, they would have to if the idea of heliocentrism was sufficiently proven. Of course, given that they had plumped pretty heavily for the earlier consensus, the process of doing so was fairly gradual. They seem to have learned their lesson and were much more circumspect the next time there was a similar new theory with theological implications. Which is why they reserved judgement on Darwin until the science was settled.

 

[Giordano]

Say, that "sure" is a nuanced analysis of the Galileo controversy.

Can I assume that you are indicating that everything I stated was not only true, but obviously true and thus you agree with it all? That's swell!


If (and I hesitate to bring this up because it may indicate paranoia on my part) I am inappropriately reading sarcasm into your reply, then I would certainly appreciate you identifying the points to which you specifically disagree and why. We can have a productive dialog in that way.

 

[The Big Dog]

Can I assume that you are indicating that everything I stated was not only true, but obviously true and thus you agree with it all? That's swell!


If (and I hesitate to bring this up because it may indicate paranoia on my part) I am inappropriately reading sarcasm into your reply, then I would certainly appreciate you identifying the points to which you specifically disagree and why. We can have a productive dialog in that way.

sure! You sarcastic reply "sure" was not a nuanced view of the Galileo controversy.

 

[Giordano]

I have had my prior expressed suspicion confirmed: religious claims that the Church really was a guiding light in science and never actually tried to suppress independent inquiry or scientific findings. That they only arranged for people to be deported, stripped of their living and possessions, ripped from their society, tortured, and/or killed because of some apparently understandable (?) differences focused on theological details that would have been inconvenient for the Church at the time.

In fact this same view tends to also confirm my other views of how many of the self-identified religious simply cannot even allow themselves to recognize that their religion ever made tragic errors that hurt other people.

I never claimed that the Catholic church hasn't become much more progressive over time. Or even that the charges against Galileo, for example, were not based only on his science. But to claim that the Church never opposed scientific advances is just silly.

I have no problem recognizing the horrible actions my government took at times in its history- I have no need to whitewash these to make me feel better. Why is it so different for many of the religious?