Hercules and Jesus

[TimONeill2]

"absurd in philosophy" would primarily be a theological view, as the charge of "heretical" confirms.

Given that this is an issue that has been gone over by historians of science specialising in the topic many times, I can only regretfully inform you that this is wrong. "Absurd in philosophy" is followed by a semi-colon in the original. See Maurice A. Finocchiaro, The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History p. 146, n. 35, where he addresses this point and makes it absolutely clear that the scientific assessments and the theological ones are distinct from each other.

Reference to then 'consenus of scientists' is spurious and dubious.

Wrong again. Robert S.Westman did a survey of opinions about Copernicanism between the first public notice of Copernicus' thesis and 1610. He found that out of the thousands of astronomers and other scholars across Europe, just ten of them supported the Copernican system. Even if we account for others who may have done so but not expressed their support explicitly, the position was very much a minority. See R.S. Westman, The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order (2011). More recently C.M. Graney has used an analysis of Riccioli's 1651 survey of the state of the question, showing how heliocentrism was still held in low regard by astronomers a whole generation after the Galileo case. See Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo (2015).

In fact it would be nice if those who made such self-assured pronouncements on this subject actually cracked open a book by some genuine scholars specialising in the subject. Because comments like yours and others here indicate pretty much zero grasp of the scholarship and about as much understanding of the context, source material and background.

 

[David Mo]

This is because they assumed that science (what they called “natural philosophy” or just “philosophy”) and revelation could not be in conflict with each other, since both ultimately came from God. So when there seemed to be a contradiction between the two they thought it was either because (a) someone had got their science wrong or (b) their interpretation of scripture was faulty. As Bellarmine wrote specifically about heliocentrism in 1615, if the science in this case could be demonstrated, the Church would have to reinterpret those verses. Given that Catholicism didn’t always interpret the Bible literally, it as entirely possible to interpret those verses according to one of the three other levels of Biblical exegesis. But, as Bellarmine also noted, they weren’t going to do this if the science wasn’t proven. And in 1615 (and 1616 and 1632 and for many decades afterwards) it was definitely not proven. Far from it – it was considered a flawed idea that was held by no more than a tiny handful of people as a result. So they concluded they should go with option (a) above. We know they were wrong, but that’s with the cheap wisdom of hindsight.

So it’s too simplistic to say “they condemned him because of the Bible” and miss the fact that they did so because the science said they should stick to their interpretation of those Biblical verses. But that doesn’t fit with the “Church was anti-science” cliché that people keep trying to jam this history into. Which is why, as someone who dislikes seeing history being distorted to fit an ideological agenda regardless of who is doing it, I try to explain the real story.
(...)
I find the way that people blithely lump “scientists” in with religious non-conformists and expect to get away with that distortion annoying. Galileo is pretty much the sole example of a scientist being suppressed by the Church and, as I’ve just explained, that was because at that stage the science of the time was against him. Which makes him a very odd example of the Church being anti-science. Bruno is not an example either. So who are these scientists the Church oppressed?

Wrong again. Robert S.Westman did a survey of opinions about Copernicanism between the first public notice of Copernicus' thesis and 1610. He found that out of the thousands of astronomers and other scholars across Europe, just ten of them supported the Copernican system. Even if we account for others who may have done so but not expressed their support explicitly, the position was very much a minority.

This description is tendentious. Church used the institutional science against Nuova Scienza as a weapon. This institutional science was dominant at this time because it was composed by religious and organic scientists of the scholastic institutions. Their science was a mixture of raw observation and Aristotelian (metaphysical) principles in its thomistic version. The later were determinants in the case of any kind of conflict. In contrast, the Nuova Scienza provided a mathematical and experimental method able to solve the dead-end where the scholastic science had enmeshed itself.
Church attacked Galileo (and others as Servet or d’Abano) because the Nuova Scienza was independent of the religious authority not because it was not proved. Galileo was silenced about many subjects that were proved by him. After that Church continued its struggle against atomism, heliocentrism, evolutionism and other scientific theories that contradicted its dogma and its power. No, Galileo was not an isolated case.

Of course, Galileo was not the unique victim of the Church's repression against science. He was an example for public dissuasion. Many scientists and thinkers had to hide their work because they were frightened by the inquisitorial power of the Church. For example, Descartes. The inclusion in the “index of forbidden texts” (1559) was another repressive method, not so hard as fire but more subtle.

The examples of tolerance (your quotes) were isolated cracks that were closed in the moment they became dangerous (even by the same Bellarmino).

ADDEd: Galileo was not condamned because his theories were scientifically inconsistent. He was condamned because his scientific theories contradicted the Bible (the Church's power). See his "recantation": http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html

 

[Craig B]

@David Mo. Right! This, from the Recantation, is the essence of the issue.

Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion, justly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error, heresy, and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office ...​

 

[David Mo]

Given that this is an issue that has been gone over by historians of science specialising in the topic many times, I can only regretfully inform you that this is wrong. "Absurd in philosophy" is followed by a semi-colon in the original. See Maurice A. Finocchiaro, The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History p. 146, n. 35, where he addresses this point and makes it absolutely clear that the scientific assessments and the theological ones are distinct from each other.

(...)

In fact it would be nice if those who made such self-assured pronouncements on this subject actually cracked open a book by some genuine scholars specialising in the subject. Because comments like yours and others here indicate pretty much zero grasp of the scholarship and about as much understanding of the context, source material and background.

The little I know of the authors you recommend shows me that they use a second version of the old arguments of Kuhn and Feyerabend (You know them, I hope). It is very disputable if the arguments against heliocentrism were stronger than the Copernicans arguments. Only the argument of parallax seemed to be strong at this moment, but it depended of the belief in an Aristotelian universe that was touched by Galileo's observation with telescope and other points. But this is not the subject.

Every new scientific paradigm needs some time to develop and confront the old theories. The Church made all its efforts to impede this from the bonfire to the "index". The "recantation" of Galileo is a perfect evidence of the origin of Church's fears: the possibility that science undermined the Church's Authority in replacing Faith, Dogma and Aristotelian system by a free thought, scientific or not. The free thought was incarnated for some time by free reading of the Bible (Lutheranism) but Churches (in plural) suddenly realised that the most dangerous enemy was the Nuova Scienza. So Copernic went into the index (1616) and the Copernicanism was considered a heresy in itself, as atomism, the worse of scientific heresies.

It is impossible to differentiate science from theology in this battlefield. Both were together. Now the times have changed and the Church cannot oppose directly to science because it would be ridiculous. Now the "respectable" Churches officially say that science and religion are separated fields... and try to put sticks in the wheels if possible. Yes, times have changed... but not fully.

 

[David Mo]

When I am chatting with a Communist I hope he distance himself of the repressive politics of the stalinism in the past and now. When I am chatting with a Christian I hope he distance himself from the repressive politics of the Church in the past and now. If this doesn't happen I have my right to suspect of the actual thoughts of my interlocutor. Intents of "cast the ball out" ("echar el balón fuera", european football expression) are really suspicious.

 

[TimONeill2]

@David Mo. Right! This, from the Recantation, is the essence of the issue.

Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion, justly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error, heresy, and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office ...​

Er, yup. Let's not bother with the context of this, let's just take the bit that fits our pseudo historical mythology and ignore what it actually means or anything said or happening around it. Worse than fundamentalists.

And I didn't bother responding to the garbled and largely incoherent messes posted by the guy you're agreeing with so vigorously. Anyone who invokes Servetus or D'Abano as evidence the Church oppressed scientists for their science is beyond help. Michael Servetus was executed for denying the Trinity and opposing infant baptism. What's that got to with science? Absolutely nothing. And Pietro D'Abano was executed over his ideas about determinism based on astrology. Science? Ummm, no.

If there are any actual "sceptics" here, they might need to ponder why these people keep making simplistic statements about Galileo and Bruno that are contradicted by the evidence and by expert scholarship and are then trying to back them up with total nonsense like pretending D'Abano was a scientist or Servetus was executed over science. This garbage would shame a Creationist, yet here was have supposed "sceptics" using junk arguments and errors of fact to prop up a faith position. It's kind of pathetic.

 

[TimONeill2]

When I am chatting with a Communist I hope he distance himself of the repressive politics of the stalinism in the past and now. When I am chatting with a Christian I hope he distance himself from the repressive politics of the Church in the past and now. If this doesn't happen I have my right to suspect of the actual thoughts of my interlocutor. Intents of "cast the ball out" ("echar el balón fuera", european football expression) are really suspicious.

I'm an atheist. Your move pal.

 

[Craig B]

Er, yup. Let's not bother with the context of this, let's just take the bit that fits our pseudo historical mythology and ignore what it actually means or anything said or happening around it. Worse than fundamentalists.

Your posts now contain little but vituperation, incivility and other ad hominem statements. Are you able to state clearly what your points are? About the contextual issues you have in mind, for example. If not, you may save yourself the trouble of posting, because I am already fully aware of the low esteem in which you hold people who disagree with you.

It is being asserted by your opponents that the real motive of the Church was to assert its authority to punish dissidence, whether this was scientific or otherwise. In that context Servetus, pursued both by Rome and Calvin, is most relevant. Recall Calvin's threat ... "if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive." Si venerit, modo valeat mea autoritas, vivum exire nunquam patiar.

That also, it seems to me, is the tenor of the recantation extorted from Galileo. He abjured, not simply "philosophically absurd" ideas, but "anything whatsoever (that) is contrary to the said Holy Church", and swore to denounce to the Holy Office any heretic or suspected heretic he might in future encounter.

 

[David Mo]

And I didn't bother responding to the garbled and largely incoherent messes posted by the guy you're agreeing with so vigorously. Anyone who invokes Servetus or D'Abano as evidence the Church oppressed scientists for their science is beyond help.

My English is not very good but your impolite answer looks like a way to avoid a debate that is not comfortable for you. My comment was not incoherent. If you have not understood the role of scientists in undermining the power of the Church in the Renaissance I can explain it to you again. Do you need an explanation of the role of experimental method in the Nuova Scienza? Do you know what was Aristotelian scholastic? Have you a problem with the concept of paradigm or parallax? I think I would be able to explain it to you even in English.

Bruno, d'Abano, Servet and others were scientists of their epoch. They often mixed scientific concepts with philosophical or theological ideas. The Church(es) condemned all together: science, philosophy and theology for the simple reason that they were a threat for its power. CraigB has correctly underlined how the condemnation of Galileo was not because magic, alchemy or other esoterism, but for the simple fact that his science threatened the Christian dogma (and Church's power). The condemnation of Galileo was a warning. For example: Few days after the condemnation the Florentine Inquisition gathered the most important scientists (not the theologians) and warned them of the danger to maintain the heresy of Copernicanism. And the pope sent the sentence urbi et orbe just in case that someone had not got the message.

You say you are atheist. Frankly, I don't give a damn what you are. Atheist or not atheist, your arguments go in the same direction that Christian revisionism of Galileo's trial (Kuhn or Feyerabend were other different thing). They intend minimize the responsability of the Church and its anti-scientific ideology. It is the same way that Jay Gould when he blames Galileo for his bad temper. Yes, the problem was Galileo's bad temper, the flaws of his theory, the magical thinking or the Devil... never the Church's theocracy. ¡Ay, caramba!

PS: I hope you have understood this time.

 

[GDon]

... but Churches (in plural) suddenly realised that the most dangerous enemy was the Nuova Scienza. So Copernic went into the index (1616) and the Copernicanism was considered a heresy in itself, as atomism, the worse of scientific heresies.

I've kept out of this since Tim O'Neill joined in, but the idea that the Church tried to impede science is ridiculous. Very little science has directed impacted on the reading of the Bible or theology, so there was no reason for the Church to impede the progress of most of it. That's why nearly all "science vs religion" debates centre around a few examples.

In fact, look at your example of Copernicus' "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium". He published it in 1543, it was freely available until the case of Galileo about 70 years later, after which it was re-evaluated. The original version was put in the Index in 1616, as you noted. But a corrected version was available to be read from 1620. The difference between the two versions? The corrected version contained about 9 alterations, nearly all being to show that the heliocentric theory was unproven. And that was actually the case, at least at the time!

Yet the heliocentric theory was still available to be studied, as long as it was proposed as a theory. Other astronomers at the time like Kepler proposed versions of the heliocentric theory and they had distinguished careers, as long as they didn't try to tie the Bible into it.

Now maybe Craig B will demand I denounce the Church as evil in some way before I am allowed to make the above claims, but that is the real background to the Galileo case.

 

[Craig B]

I've kept out of this since Tim O'Neill joined in, but the idea that the Church tried to impede science is ridiculous.

Say you so? Wiki

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 when the Master of the Sacred Palace (the Church's chief censor), Filippo Anfossi, refused to license a book by a Catholic canon, Giuseppe Settele, because it openly treated heliocentrism as a physical fact. Settele appealed to pope Pius VII. After the matter had been reconsidered by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office, Anfossi's decision was overturned. Copernicus's De Revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue were then subsequently omitted from the next edition of the Index when it appeared in 1835.​

If you want to call banning all books proposing heliocentrism up to 1758, and banning the idea that Copernicus' and Keplers' proposals had a bearing on physical facts, up to 1835, "not impeding science", then I can't argue with you.

Now maybe Craig B will demand I denounce the Church as evil in some way before I am allowed to make the above claims, but that is the real background to the Galileo case.

You can make any claims you like; but I regret to see you have chosen to follow Tim O'Neill's methodology of addressing alleged flaws in the character of persons rather than in the points they bring to this discussion.

 

[GDon]

If you want to call banning all books proposing heliocentrism up to 1758, and banning the idea that Copernicus' and Keplers' proposals had a bearing on physical facts, up to 1835, "not impeding science", then I can't argue with you.

But all books proposing heliocentrism were NOT banned up to 1758. That's where you are wrong. Books proposing heliocentrism AS FACT were banned; but teaching it as a THEORY was not banned. The difference is: heliocentrism wasn't thought to have been proven until more than a century after Galileo.

Answer me this:

(1) Was a revised version of Copernicus' work (consisting of changes to nine sentences, of which the heliocentric system was represented as certain) allowed after 1620, only a few years after Galileo's case? Yes or no?

(2) Was the heliocentric theory thought to be FACT by the leading scholars of 1620? Yes or no?

Your answers should at least provide some agreement to where the discussion is at.

 

[David Mo]

I've kept out of this since Tim O'Neill joined in, but the idea that the Church tried to impede science is ridiculous. Very little science has directed impacted on the reading of the Bible or theology, so there was no reason for the Church to impede the progress of most of it. That's why nearly all "science vs religion" debates centre around a few examples.

In fact, look at your example of Copernicus' "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium". He published it in 1543, it was freely available until the case of Galileo about 70 years later, after which it was re-evaluated. The original version was put in the Index in 1616, as you noted. But a corrected version was available to be read from 1620. The difference between the two versions? The corrected version contained about 9 alterations, nearly all being to show that the heliocentric theory was unproven. And that was actually the case, at least at the time!

Yet the heliocentric theory was still available to be studied, as long as it was proposed as a theory. Other astronomers at the time like Kepler proposed versions of the heliocentric theory and they had distinguished careers, as long as they didn't try to tie the Bible into it.

Now maybe Craig B will demand I denounce the Church as evil in some way before I am allowed to make the above claims, but that is the real background to the Galileo case.

The heliocentric theory was deemed false by the Inquisition in 1616. The true "scientific" doctrine was Ptolemaic geocentrism (in accordance with both the Bible and the Aristotelian principles). So the heliocentrism was tolerated only by express declaration that it was just a mathematical speculation. I don't know what concept you have of free thought and autonomy of science. In my opinion, when a political or/and theological institution says what is true and what is false and menaces with penal prosecution to dissidents is impeding the progress of science.

Other different thing is if the Church had the actual power to impede the diffusion of Copernican astronomy in Europe. Fortunately, its power was not infinite and the Nuova Scienza could grow in some tolerant countries such as England or Holland. Unfortunately, other countries as Spain or Italy were subjected to a stronger ecclesiastical censure and its science remained underdeveloped for centuries.

I don't understand your insistence in repeating again and again that heliocentrism had not been "proved" in 1616. Was the geocentrism more evident? This is a crazy idea. In 1616 there were many scientific reasons to prefer the heliocentrism against geocentrism. In becoming involved in behalf of the latter the Church was not defending the truth, but its privileges because the heliocentrisme, in the same way that atomism, other scientific heresy, was a menace to them. This menace lay in the possibility to explain nature without interference of the Bible and the men of Church. "Very little science", maybe, but decisive.

 

[Mcreal]

Wrong. Dead wrong. The ruling against him clearly states that his position was "absurd in philosophy (that's "scientifically wrong" in our language) and formally heretical". The second follows from the first because if his science was wrong, which in 1616 was the overwhelming consensus of scientists, the traditional interpretations of relevant parts of the Bible were to be upheld. I've explained all this in detail to you once - didn't you understand?

"absurd in philosophy" would primarily be a theological view, as the charge of "heretical" confirms. Reference to then 'consenus of scientists' is spurious and dubious.

Given that this is an issue that has been gone over by historians of science specialising in the topic many times, I can only regretfully inform you that this is wrong. "Absurd in philosophy" is followed by a semi-colon in the original. See Maurice A. Finocchiaro, The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History p. 146, n. 35, where he addresses this point and makes it absolutely clear that the scientific assessments and the theological ones are distinct from each other.

In 1615 the Roman Inquisition concluded that heliocentrism was

"foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".

(Hannam, James (2011). The Genesis of Science. pp.329–344.)​

note: " ..since it explicitly contradicts .."

Reference to then 'consenus of scientists' is spurious and dubious.

Wrong again. Robert S.Westman did a survey of opinions about Copernicanism between the first public notice of Copernicus' thesis and 1610. He found that out of the thousands of astronomers and other scholars across Europe, just ten of them supported the Copernican system. Even if we account for others who may have done so but not expressed their support explicitly, the position was very much a minority. See R.S. Westman, The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order (2011).

More recently C.M. Graney has used an analysis of Riccioli's 1651 survey of the state of the question, showing how heliocentrism was still held in low regard by astronomers a whole generation after the Galileo case. See Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo (2015).

In fact it would be nice if those who made such self-assured pronouncements on this subject actually cracked open a book by some genuine scholars specialising in the subject. Because comments like yours and others here indicate pretty much zero grasp of the scholarship and about as much understanding of the context, source material and background.

Reference and appeal to 'a survey of opinions' or then current, or even later, 'regards' of astronomers (aka 'consensuses of scientists') is beside-the-point as to why Galileo was deemed "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".

And, it would be reasonable to infer that the 'opinions' and 'regards' of then astronomers were influenced by the ruling against Galileo or the general views of the church.

 

[GDon]

I don't understand your insistence in repeating again and again that heliocentrism had not been "proved" in 1616. Was the geocentrism more evident?

Yes it was! Remember, astronomers had been using a geocentric model (Ptomely's and derivations of it) since the Second Century CE for calculations, and the model worked.

There was also the problem of the lack of parallax with the stars under a heliocentric model. This problem was only resolved in the 19th C, 200 years after Galileo, when parallax with a star was finally observed. In Galileo's time, they didn't have the technology to prove this.

This is a crazy idea. In 1616 there were many scientific reasons to prefer the heliocentrism against geocentrism.

Well, simply list them then, showing that the reasons were accepted by the majority of scholars of the day. Start with the problems of parallax, and the that the geocentric model of the time worked. But show the reasons as acceptable solutions available in THEIR time, not solutions we have in hindsight 500 years later.

 

[Beerina]

The literary style at the time demanded that a hero was required to have a magical birth. Thus, Moses gets floated down a river; Caesar is born so outlandishly the procedure was named after him; and Jesus gets a virgin and wise men. Christians weren't plagiarizing, they were creating a narrative that fit their sense of aesthetics.

Harry Potter
Darth "There was no father" Vader
Paul "Kwisatz Haderach Male Bene Gesserit Navigator-level Spice Slinger Don't Forget Mentat!" Atreides
Clark "Life saved from death by being floated down the river of stars to Earth" Kent

I don't know if this is the correct definition or not, but I always called it the "romantic" origin -- the pre-destination where these prophecy-level events are built into you, as opposed to busting butt like Hermione to learn it all.

For some reason, people reading stories (and in reality) feel more speshul when some awesome thing is theirs by birthright rather than by working for it.

 

[Craig B]

But all books proposing heliocentrism were NOT banned up to 1758. That's where you are wrong. Books proposing heliocentrism AS FACT were banned; but teaching it as a THEORY was not banned. The difference is: heliocentrism wasn't thought to have been proven until more than a century after Galileo.

This quibble, that refusing to permit the teaching of statements of fact as facts is not impeding science is breathtakingly preposterous. In any case I noted it in my post.

If you want to call banning all books proposing heliocentrism up to 1758, and banning the idea that Copernicus' and Keplers' proposals had a bearing on physical facts, up to 1835, "not impeding science", then I can't argue with you.​

What heliocentrism "thought to have been proven" prior to 1758 or1820?

In 1665 Alexander VII published a version of the Index the wording of which seems to be rather uncompromising

Pope Alexander VII publishes a new Index in which are forbidden “all books and any booklets, periodicals, compositions, consultations, letters, glosses, opuscula, speeches, replies, treatises, whether printed or in manuscript, containing and treating the following subjects or about the following subjects…the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun.”​

Quoted in http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.co.uk/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-iii-scriptural.html 1665:

 

[GDon]

This quibble, that refusing to permit the teaching of statements of fact as facts is not impeding science is breathtakingly preposterous.

But they weren't known as facts at the time! Can you at least accept your statement is wrong on that basis?

In any case I noted it in my post.

If you want to call banning all books proposing heliocentrism up to 1758, and banning the idea that Copernicus' and Keplers' proposals had a bearing on physical facts, up to 1835, "not impeding science", then I can't argue with you.​

What heliocentrism "thought to have been proven" prior to 1758 or1820?

In 1665 Alexander VII published a version of the Index the wording of which seems to be rather uncompromising

Pope Alexander VII publishes a new Index in which are forbidden “all books and any booklets, periodicals, compositions, consultations, letters, glosses, opuscula, speeches, replies, treatises, whether printed or in manuscript, containing and treating the following subjects or about the following subjects…the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun.”​

Quoted in http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.co.uk/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-iii-scriptural.html 1665:

If you want to use that webpage (which appears to support Geocentrism weirdly enough), then note that just below your quote above the weblink states (my bold):

First it is clear that the Church was not against discussing heliocentrism as a theoretical issue, as evidenced here (as well as February 1632, above) :

1620: The De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium of Copernicus is reprinted at Rome with ecclesiastical permission and containing a monitum addressed to the reader and certain corrections to the text in order that its expressions favourable to heliocentrism should be understood only as a hypothesis proposed on account of its potential practical utility.​

Game over, man! (At least for the point I'm making.)

Of course I'm not saying the Catholic Church did the right thing in condemning Galileo. This is about giving the proper background to the situation at the time. Geocentrism was the favored view of the universe at that time. There was a model that worked, and there were questions about the validity of Heliocentrism that weren't resolved until at least a century later.

 

[Craig B]

1620: The De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium of Copernicus is reprinted at Rome with ecclesiastical permission and containing a monitum addressed to the reader and certain corrections to the text in order that its expressions favourable to heliocentrism should be understood only as a hypothesis proposed on account of its potential practical utility.​

Game over, man! (At least for the point I'm making.)

Why do you express yourself in such provocative terms? You didn't read my citation with sufficient care perhaps. 1665 is subsequent to 1620. I stated that in the later year Alexander VII decreed a prohibition of

... all books and any booklets, periodicals, compositions, consultations, letters, glosses, opuscula, speeches, replies, treatises, whether printed or in manuscript, containing and treating the following subjects or about the following subjects…the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun.​

 

[Navigator]

The literary style at the time demanded that a hero was required to have a magical birth. Thus, Moses gets floated down a river; Caesar is born so outlandishly the procedure was named after him; and Jesus gets a virgin and wise men. Christians weren't plagiarizing, they were creating a narrative that fit their sense of aesthetics.

Don't forget that Romans were well influenced by such philosophy.

Christians are just another word for Romans.


One culture interpreting another cultures narrative.


NRS

Heros in real life are born of Women.

Matter of fact....but no doubt ET have other ways of birthing critters...