Balancing Skepticism and Faith

[David Mo]

Bluster-merchants like "David Mo" desperately need to have the last word, so I figured if I said I was tired of responding to him he would come back with another string of assertions. [Etc., etc.].

Thank you for the long comment (beautiful picture indluded) that becomes more and more contradictory:

I am glad that we agree on something fundamental: You do not deny that "the papacy and the Holy Office's action against Galileo is one of the most savage attacks against the independence of science". What I don't understand very well is how you can later say that there is no real conflict between science and religion. Here is a good example that lasted for as long as the Inquisition was powerful and the index of banned books effective.

On the Consensus of Denialist Historians: You cite one historian of medicine, one medievalist historian, and another who is not even a historian. There is no doubt a "broad" consensus to deny that there is a conflict between religion and science. You forget another source: John Paul II, the ultra-conservative pope, who fully agrees with your thesis. If you want I can quote his shameful words about Galileo literally. I understand that someone who calls himself an atheist feels a certain discomfort from this "coincidence" and tries to overlook it. Or don't you feel uncomfortable?

I can present a much broader consensus: that of the historians of science who consider Copernican theory, or rather Galilean, as a true scientific revolution or new "paradigm" to use Kuhn's term. The idea was already launched by Kant under the concept of "Copernican turn". As you can understand, a revolution is a total change that refutes or nullifies the old science, which are all those that you recklessly cited as Galileo's antecedents. That is, the representatives of Neoplatonic and Aristotelian science and metaphysics. I am truly curious - this is not rhetoric - to know what Duns Scotus contributed to Galileo's scientific revolution according you. I insist, I would like to know what you say about it. I am afraid it is going to be nothing.

About the bibliography I use, which worries you , I can tell you the books I have at home. I have read others from the library of my university, but I would have to consult them if you insist on any specific point. From Galileo I have read the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems and I have a monograph by Johannes Hemleben. (The editions I handle are in Spanish). As for stories of science that devote ample space to Galileo or books dedicated to the subject at hand, I can cite, if you require precise quotations, those of Thomas S. Kuhn, Ernst Cassirer, L. W. H. Hull, Arthur Koestler (on Kepler), Hans Reichenbach, Imre Lakatos, Marx W. Wartofsky and others that I do not remember now... ah yes, Frederick C. Copleston, very importat for Aristotelism. I leave aside two or three stories of philosophy that devote ample space to the subject. Other Spanish authors that I have read I don't quote them, because surely you wouldn't know them. As well as a few articles that would make the list long. I also leave aside some less voluminous references, although they may be interesting, such as Ortega y Gasset's vision of the New Science.

What I cannot understand is why you know but do not take into consideration the condemnation of Bruno which expressly mentions the theory that the Earth moves ("the correct thing to say is that no-one really cared much either way until Galileo started " "No one??? The Inquisition is "No-one"????). It clearly indicates that the trial against Galileo was preceded by an interest of the Holy Office and other Catholic sectors on the subject. Here you do not seem or do not want to understand that the forces in the Church were divided into two factions, one conservative and the other more open, which ended up uniting into one: the Conservative Counter-Reformer, who kept the dogma with fire and blood for several centuries and who has not yet assimilated the great damage it caused with Galileo's condemnation and its aftermath. Galileo and his friends were too confident that the liberality of Bellarmino and others would serve as a parapet to the supporters of reaction. For various reasons this confidence failed and it turned out that the liberals were not so muchliberal. As now.
Therefore: ecclesiastical censorship and the Holy Office were the instruments that exemplify a conflict between science and religion that has not yet been resolved. We could continue with the attacks on atomism or Darwinism, which are also good examples. And I have only limited myself to Catholicism and more or less official Christianity. If we go to sects or other less "European" religions, things would get much blacker.

I would like to analyse the causes of this conflict now, but for personal reasons I will not be able to do so until the weekend. I will gladly return if you are still there with your list of insults and barbarities. It will be a pleasure to continue the conversation in a friendly manner.

Endnote: Brown's book contradicts your absurd idea about the cause of the end of paganism without the influence of the political factor. The same goes for Paul Veyne's "stuff" in several of his books. Or Rostovtzeff magna opera on Rome or Momigliano, etc. I have explained it to you above. We were talking about the end of paganism, not just intellectuals. Your previous words: "Those edicts were a symptom of paganism's decline, not its cause. Its cause was demographic". Don't invent my theories in order to refute them better. That's pretty shabby. You don't have to put photos to see that there is a hand holding Brown's book. We are able to think without pictures. We the "philosophers" even use reason.

 

[David Mo]

But you have perfectly misunderstood what the only (medieval) science historian you quote says: Edward Grant. It does not deny the scientific revolution of the New Science and the defeat of scholastic theological science. But he believes that the revolution is based on a philosophically incorrect realistic concept: science discovers things themselves. Grant, for his part, makes a mistake of the same size: he believes that current science agrees with the English nominalism of the 14th century. Big mistake: 20th century science is not humean, even though Einstein thought so. But this is another debate that takes us out of the epoch. In reality the scholastic nominalists were empiricists not to reinforce the power of reason, but to subdue it to the power of faith. For science to submit to the church. It is in this sense that they were rightly called "the ancients".

This is a comment to:
Grant, Edward. “Late Medieval Thought, Copernicus, and the Scientific Revolution.”*Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 23, no. 2, 1962, pp. 197–220.

Another mistake of Grant's: to code the "Copernican" revolution only in its realism as a way to "save appearances". The revolution took mainly place at the level of method and emancipation from religious tutelage. And Copernicus did not do this.

 

[TimONeill2]

I learned long ago that there are some discussions worth pursuing, but some are just a waste of time and effort. It's usually a sign I am in one of the latter when I read ridiculous stuff like this:

On the Consensus of Denialist Historians: You cite one historian of medicine, one medievalist historian, and another who is not even a historian.

This moronic comment is apparently referring to David Lindberg, Ronald Numbers and J.H. Brooke, though what this "David Mo" person says about them bears so little relationship to reality it is hard to tell which he is referring to precisely, since none of them can be designated simply as a "historian of medicine" or a "medievalist historian" and none of them is "not even a historian". Again, these are three of THE leading historians in the field of the history of science. Two of them were presidents of the History of Science Society. One was an editor of Isis. - the leading journal in the field. And one was an editor of the Cambridge History of Science while another is its current editor. To dismiss these giants in the field as "denialist historians" and to describe them the way this "David Mo" person does above is nothing less than frigging idiotic.

I am going to assuming "David Mo" isn't actually a frigging idiot, so why is he making arguments that he must know are patent frigging idiocy? Because he knows he's lost the argument. So all he's got left is trolling and idiocy, like the nonsense above.

So, now that it is clear to everyone here, including "David Mo", that he has lost the argument, my work here is done. People like "David Mo" always have to have the last word, of course, so I'll leave him to compound his humiliating defeat by doing so. I'm sure it will be more trolling and idiocy, because that's all he's got, the poor guy. It must be sad to realise you are a deluded fanatic and that you have been exposed as such to the world.

 

[David Mo]

So, now that it is clear to everyone here, including "David Mo", that he has lost the argument, my work here is done. People like "David Mo" always have to have the last word, of course, so I'll leave him to compound his humiliating defeat by doing so. I'm sure it will be more trolling and idiocy, because that's all he's got, the poor guy. It must be sad to realise you are a deluded fanatic and that you have been exposed as such to the world.

Wow, it looks like he deflated when he had to analyze a text in detail. I've never seen a supposed expert (amateur or not) with such a low response capacity. I thought I was talking to someone who, although quite bilious in character, was able to respond with arguments to arguments. This self-proclaimed winner of I don't know what imaginary fight is really childish. I've seen much better polemics in this forum. What a disappointment!

 

[Marcus]

Wow, it looks like he deflated when he had to analyze a text in detail. I've never seen a supposed expert (amateur or not) with such a low response capacity. I thought I was talking to someone who, although quite bilious in character, was able to respond with arguments to arguments. This self-proclaimed winner of I don't know what imaginary fight is really childish. I've seen much better polemics in this forum. What a disappointment!

The fight between the two of you was both entertaining and educational. He certainly seems like an expert to me, although I will say he could have been more polite.

 

[David Mo]

The fight between the two of you was both entertaining and educational. He certainly seems like an expert to me, although I will say he could have been more polite.

It's not a matter of bad manners. This is secondary. Bad education often reveals the level of argumentation. When you insult so much you are not sure of yourself.

Of course, O'Neill has studied the subject, but he doesn't know as much as he appears. You can notice that he has avoided answering my objections on the New Science revolution because he is not sure there. The question about Duns Scotus and the interpretation of Kuhn's paradigm shift have left him speechless.

He knows the facts, but he has several problems:
-He is not able to fit them into valid theories.
-Because his interpretation of the data is guided by an ideology that totally coincides with the excuses of the Catholic Church for its role in the fight against science in general and the Galileo case in particular.
-He is not able to see that ecclesiastical institutions are not compact blocks. There are divisions into them that usually oppose a more reformist sector and a more intransigent one. In the Catholic Church, unfortunately, the latter tends to triumph.

That's why he selects the data he's interested in and removes the data that disproves his ideas. I would have been interested in discussing some point in more depth, but he cuts the conversation when he is interested in it with his aggressive style.

For example, Hypatia. O'Neill insists that repression against pagan culture has nothing to do with his death. This is Dzielska's thesis. But it omits the data that Dzielska herself provides. On pages 103 to 107 of her book (in my Spanish edition, corresponding to the chapter "The circumstances of Hipatia's death"), we learn of certain revealing facts that O'Neill overlooks. These are:

Hypatia was known to be a pagan philosopher. She taught in public bearing the distinctive white cloak of philosophers and her books deal with platonic subjects, especially mathematics and astronomy. So Cyril -started a "propaganda plan"- against her accusing her of "paganism," "of mixing sorcery, mathematics, astronomy and philosophy" (Note the same mixture as Augustine!). Through "this manipulation, Hypatia was presented as a dangerous witch". And Dzielska says that Hipatia's attitude was "a fight against the Church" (!). It is evident that with these data the attack of Christianity against the remains of Hellenic science is one of the components of Hipatia's murder. It may not have been the only reason for his death, but it was an essential component that belongs to the same context as the closing of the school in Athens, the burning of the small billiotheque of Alexandria (the Serapeum), the expulsion of the philosophers by Justinian and Cyril's Contra Julianum. (The phrases in quotation marks are from the book that O'Neill pretends I haven't read).

This way, O'Neill and the group of negationists -that he call "consensus"- do nothing but follow the guidelines set by the Church itself, as evidenced by the statement of Pope John Paul II who presented false "excuses" for having maintained for centuries that the earth does not move. He pretends to put the faults of a bloody and repressive tribunal on the same level as a scientist like Galileo because he was "too proud" and did not want to disguise his theory as mere speculation. True, the pride of proclaiming the truth against the criminal techniques of the power of the Church. On the same plate. This demonstrates the value that the Catholic Church still attaches to freedom of expression and research. It accepts it because it has no choice.

On this point I would like to say a little more. I will see if I have time.

 

[David Mo]

For example:

Copernicus had the prudence of the investigator who still lacks the decisive proof of his thesis... (...)However, because he was unable to provide experimental evidence, he did not want to use it to publish it as definitive. (...) It was only at the end of his life, in 1543, that the famous treatise De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was published, thanks to the initiative of his disciples, who presented his discovery as a hypothesis.
As is well known, Galileo made the Copernican theory his own and advocated it with enthusiasm, but not with the same enthusiasm. It is not a simple hypothesis but a true doctrine, thus provoking the reaction of the ecclesiastical authority. [...]
With his prodigious erudition and moral strength, Copernicus embodies the image of the humanist prudent and bold. (…)
Eminent man of science and faith, he set no limits to the knowledge of reality and truth. (John Paul II, September 20th, 1993: “Al Prof. Pietro Dalpiaz, Rettore Magnifico della Università degli Studi di Ferrara”)​

This text is based on two lies: that Copernicus did not believe that his theory was true and that the Inquisition acted for scientific reasons. But something worse can be deduced from him: that the Inquisition was "fair and prudent" when it imprisoned Galileo because he did not like Galileo's truth.
This is the Church in its pure state. For her, the virtue of Christian prudence is the fear to the Inquisition. And this is the same O’Neill's negationism. Very strange marriage for an “atheist”.

 

[David Mo]

The mess consists of mixing two different things: the struggle of the church against science throughout history and the possibility that there is a type of faith that is not contrary to science.
The first is historical evidence, which I am talking about now.
The second is another matter.

But the two questions are illustrative of a real conflict between science and religion.

If you are interested we can continue talking. O'Neill1 does not seem to be interested.

Thank you for your patience in reading my very long commentaries, Markus.

 

[TimONeill2]

It's not a matter of bad manners. This is secondary. Bad education often reveals the level of argumentation. When you insult so much you are not sure of yourself.

Or you're dealing with someone who is not worth the effort.

Of course, O'Neill has studied the subject, but he doesn't know as much as he appears. You can notice that he has avoided answering my objections on the New Science revolution because he is not sure there. The question about Duns Scotus and the interpretation of Kuhn's paradigm shift have left him speechless.

Oh, this is priceless! You are utterly delusional.

 

[Marcus]

Or you're dealing with someone who is not worth the effort.



Oh, this is priceless! You are utterly delusional.

Could you counter his points about Hypatia and Copernicus?


I'm sure there are other lurkers like me who are enjoying the discussion but don't have the knowledge to comment on the subject matter.

 

[David Mo]

Could you counter his points about Hypatia and Copernicus?


I'm sure there are other lurkers like me who are enjoying the discussion but don't have the knowledge to comment on the subject matter.

I would like to know your criticism of my position, even if you are not an expert. Neither I am.

 

[TimONeill2]

Could you counter his points about Hypatia and Copernicus?

He could make it look as though he was doing so. Like with his confused stuff about Kuhn and Duns Scotus etc., he knows just enough to throw out references as a smokescreen to give the illusion that he knows what he's talking about and is on some kind of solid ground. But he and I both know he isn't. He knows that the historians I'm referring to are the leaders in the field and the position that the "Conflict Thesis" is nonsense is the consensus of experts. But he can't admit that. So he burbles nonsense about Lindberg et al being "denialists" and scatterguns some names of other historians, none of whom support what he's saying. It's all a smokescreen because he knows he's beaten here and all he can do is make the onlookers think maybe he isn't. He's pathetic.

I'm sure there are other lurkers like me who are enjoying the discussion but don't have the knowledge to comment on the subject matter.

That's precisely what he's counting on. I'd be happy to continue the discussion with you or anyone else if there are points you'd like to explore. But I'm not wasting any more time on a troll.

 

[fuelair]

I am willing to hit at it without either background: If the church did not agree with something they condemned it and often the persons who discovered/believed it/taught it.

The church murdered and tortured people who believed things the church did not like and did their best to destroy real knowledge if it conflicted with ignorant religious beliefs (which is basically most if not all religious beliefs).

 

[Marcus]

He could make it look as though he was doing so. Like with his confused stuff about Kuhn and Duns Scotus etc., he knows just enough to throw out references as a smokescreen to give the illusion that he knows what he's talking about and is on some kind of solid ground. But he and I both know he isn't. He knows that the historians I'm referring to are the leaders in the field and the position that the "Conflict Thesis" is nonsense is the consensus of experts. But he can't admit that. So he burbles nonsense about Lindberg et al being "denialists" and scatterguns some names of other historians, none of whom support what he's saying. It's all a smokescreen because he knows he's beaten here and all he can do is make the onlookers think maybe he isn't. He's pathetic.



That's precisely what he's counting on. I'd be happy to continue the discussion with you or anyone else if there are points you'd like to explore. But I'm not wasting any more time on a troll.

The Conflict Thesis is definitely what I was taught in school, but that was a long time ago, I'm inclined to believe you when you say this is not the current consensus. Perhaps some more discussion on this, and some links? I'll admit I probably won't be buying specialist books on the subject.

 

[TimONeill2]

I am willing to hit at it without either background: If the church did not agree with something they condemned it and often the persons who discovered/believed it/taught it.

Yes. But this almost never involved the examination of the physical world. It was extremely rare for the Church to disagree with anyone who used reason to examine the rational world because it had developed the concept of "the Two Books". One was the "Book of Nature", which involved the physical cosmos, which they believed could and should be apprehended by reason because they believed it was the product of a rational Creator. The other was the "Book of God" which was the Bible and the writings of the Patristics.

Since they believed both "books" described the same cosmos if they saw a conflict they put it down to a matter of interpretation. So, in the case of the physical evidence that the earth was a sphere and Biblical texts that talked about it as though it were flat, they accepted that the latter should not be interpreted literally and read them figuratively.

The reason everyone who tries to defend the Conflict Thesis always has to circle back to Galileo is because that case was one of the very few times someone examining the physical world came into direct conflict with theological controversies. And, as I have already noted, this was because Pope Urban VIII was under pressure from conservatives to crack down on non-theologians dabbling in Biblical interpretation. This had been banned by the Council of Trent and Urban was seen by Spanish cardinals as being too lax in enforcing that ban. Galileo's academic rivals saw this as their chance to get him in trouble and stirred up a Dominican preacher to accuse Galileo of heretical ideas and the Inquisition began questioning people about Galileo's writings and conversations about the interpretation of the Bible.

Before this, no-one had cared about him believing in the Copernican model, even though everyone knew he did. Church censors had approved his book on sunspots just a few years earlier, without batting an eyelid at the defence of heliocentrism in it. The Galileo case came about because it became entangled in some theological controversies, some complex politics and some personal resentments.

And even then it was not a "religion versus science" conflict anyway, since there were theologians and scientists on both sides in the case. The Church had the overwhelming consensus of scientists on its side, since because there were still major scientific problems with heliocentrism at that stage, most astronomers thought Copernicus and Galileo were wrong.

The church murdered and tortured people who believed things the church did not like and did their best to destroy real knowledge if it conflicted with ignorant religious beliefs (which is basically most if not all religious beliefs).

See above. No-one was "murdered and tortured" for anything to do with "real knowledge" about the physical world. Plenty were "murdered and tortured" over points of theology, but not over science. That is a myth.

 

[David Mo]

Yes. But this almost never involved the examination of the physical world. Etc..

The reason everyone who tries to defend the Conflict Thesis always has to circle back to Galileo is because that case was one of the very few times someone examining the physical world came into direct conflict with theological controversies.
​

This isn't true. Speaking only of Spain, the Index of forbidden books of 1559 included 11 first line authors, 68 in 1584, and if we include authors in general the figure rises to 300. In addition, we should count the European authors who are forbidden. The Grand Inquisitor General Sandoval boasts in 1612 that he has banned or censored more than three hundred books "the most read in universities". Note that possessing a forbidden book was a reason for persecution by the Holy Office. This is a very illustrative example of what the Catholic Church's attitude was towards those who dared to think on their own. Scientists or non-scientists.
Of course, Copernicus' and Galileo's books were in the index, but also those of other scientists like Osiander.
Is this not a conflict between religion and science?

Galileo's academic rivals saw this as their chance to get him in trouble and stirred up a Dominican preacher to accuse Galileo of heretical ideas and the Inquisition began questioning people about Galileo's writings and conversations about the interpretation of the Bible.
Before this, no-one had cared about him believing in the Copernican model,​

This is false. Luther had criticized Copernican theory long before. And although it was during a private conversation, it had been published a few years later. For its part, the Inquisition had condemned Giordano Bruno years before for his defense of the Earth movement. This indicates that, despite the fact that a section of the church supported Galileo -less than he believed-, there was already an opposing movement that ended up triumphing. It was not Galileo's character that triggered the case, but his defense of science against faith in the literal reading of the Bible. That is why he was insisted to dilute his theory by feigning that it was pure speculation.

And even then it was not a "religion versus science" conflict anyway, since there were theologians and scientists on both sides in the case. The Church had the overwhelming consensus of scientists on its side, since because there were still major scientific problems with heliocentrism at that stage, most astronomers thought Copernicus and Galileo were wrong.​

This reveals very well what the negationists' concept of "consensus" is. The consensus of all the "men of faith" - as John Paul II said - against Galileo is "the Consensus". The consensus of fear is not a consensus. The same could be said of the consensus of Soviet scholars that Lenin was the most brilliant politician in the universe. There were many brave men who risked the persecution of the churches, helped Galileo and brought forth the New Science. Of course, these were not "the Consensus".

Nor is it true that the weight of the arguments was on the side of the opponents of Galileo. It is true that Galieo's system had gaps - like the parallax issue - but it had very important data in its favor, like the observation of Jupiter's satellites movement. Above all he had in his favor that it was a much simpler system, which allowed to establish calculations and predictions that the complicated geocentric theory of epicycles could not do. In addition, it eliminated a whole series of Aristotelian concepts such as natural places, the sublunar world, circular perfection, etc., etc., which were based solely on the authority of Aristotle. Galileo's system had an advantage over others, that its assertions were based on mathematics and controlled experience, not on authority.

This "consensus" against Galileo included some who considered that mathematics was diabolical or that: "those satellites are invisible to the naked eye and, therefore, cannot influence the Earth and, consequently, are useless. Then they do not exist" (Francesco Sizzi). This was the kind of "scientist" Galileo had in front of him. A mixture of theoretical and religious.

But what I find appalling about the negationists is that they justify ecclesiastical repression with the false argument that Galileo was right but did not seem right. This supposes that if a scientist maintains questionable theories about facts, religion has every right to eliminate it. That is an unfortunate justification. The superiority of science and reason is based precisely on their ability to discuss theories freely and to give the opposite opportunity to defend them, even if we believe them to be erroneous. If the church or any other power attributes to itself the right to persecute those who maintain hypotheses that they do not like, we arrive at a perversion of all truth. The theory of the two truths sounds very good. Maybe there is a truth that only affects the pure spiritual. I doubt it, but it's nice. But I have not yet seen a religion or sect that has not invaded the secular truth with its religious truth. Sooner or later. This is religion's major conflict with science. Galileo's case illustrates this perfectly.

 

[TimONeill2]

The reason everyone who tries to defend the Conflict Thesis always has to circle back to Galileo is because that case was one of the very few times someone examining the physical world came into direct conflict with theological controversies.
​

This isn't true. Speaking only of Spain, the Index of forbidden books of 1559 included 11 first line authors, 68 in 1584, and if we include authors in general the figure rises to 300. In addition, we should count the European authors who are forbidden. The Grand Inquisitor General Sandoval boasts in 1612 that he has banned or censored more than three hundred books "the most read in universities". Note that possessing a forbidden book was a reason for persecution by the Holy Office. This is a very illustrative example of what the Catholic Church's attitude was towards those who dared to think on their own. Scientists or non-scientists.
Of course, Copernicus' and Galileo's books were in the index, but also those of other scientists like Osiander.
Is this not a conflict between religion and science?

Galileo's academic rivals saw this as their chance to get him in trouble and stirred up a Dominican preacher to accuse Galileo of heretical ideas and the Inquisition began questioning people about Galileo's writings and conversations about the interpretation of the Bible.
Before this, no-one had cared about him believing in the Copernican model,​

This is false. Luther had criticized Copernican theory long before. And although it was during a private conversation, it had been published a few years later. For its part, the Inquisition had condemned Giordano Bruno years before for his defense of the Earth movement. This indicates that, despite the fact that a section of the church supported Galileo -less than he believed-, there was already an opposing movement that ended up triumphing. It was not Galileo's character that triggered the case, but his defense of science against faith in the literal reading of the Bible. That is why he was insisted to dilute his theory by feigning that it was pure speculation.

And even then it was not a "religion versus science" conflict anyway, since there were theologians and scientists on both sides in the case. The Church had the overwhelming consensus of scientists on its side, since because there were still major scientific problems with heliocentrism at that stage, most astronomers thought Copernicus and Galileo were wrong.​

This reveals very well what the negationists' concept of "consensus" is. The consensus of all the "men of faith" - as John Paul II said - against Galileo is "the Consensus". The consensus of fear is not a consensus. The same could be said of the consensus of Soviet scholars that Lenin was the most brilliant politician in the universe. There were many brave men who risked the persecution of the churches, helped Galileo and brought forth the New Science. Of course, these were not "the Consensus".

Nor is it true that the weight of the arguments was on the side of the opponents of Galileo. It is true that Galieo's system had gaps - like the parallax issue - but it had very important data in its favor, like the observation of Jupiter's satellites movement. Above all he had in his favor that it was a much simpler system, which allowed to establish calculations and predictions that the complicated geocentric theory of epicycles could not do. In addition, it eliminated a whole series of Aristotelian concepts such as natural places, the sublunar world, circular perfection, etc., etc., which were based solely on the authority of Aristotle. Galileo's system had an advantage over others, that its assertions were based on mathematics and controlled experience, not on authority.

This "consensus" against Galileo included some who considered that mathematics was diabolical or that: "those satellites are invisible to the naked eye and, therefore, cannot influence the Earth and, consequently, are useless. Then they do not exist" (Francesco Sizzi). This was the kind of "scientist" Galileo had in front of him. A mixture of theoretical and religious.

But what I find appalling about the negationists is that they justify ecclesiastical repression with the false argument that Galileo was right but did not seem right. This supposes that if a scientist maintains questionable theories about facts, religion has every right to eliminate it. That is an unfortunate justification. The superiority of science and reason is based precisely on their ability to discuss theories freely and to give the opposite opportunity to defend them, even if we believe them to be erroneous. If the church or any other power attributes to itself the right to persecute those who maintain hypotheses that they do not like, we arrive at a perversion of all truth. The theory of the two truths sounds very good. Maybe there is a truth that only affects the pure spiritual. I doubt it, but it's nice. But I have not yet seen a religion or sect that has not invaded the secular truth with its religious truth. Sooner or later. This is religion's major conflict with science. Galileo's case illustrates this perfectly.

Another tangle of nonsense and blunders from "David Mo". If anyone else thinks he makes any points that seem convincing here, let me know and I'll explain how he's wrong. He's like a walking illustration of the Dunning Kruger Effect.

 

[David Mo]

Another tangle of nonsense and blunders from "David Mo". If anyone else thinks he makes any points that seem convincing here, let me know and I'll explain how he's wrong. He's like a walking illustration of the Dunning Kruger Effect.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm stating my point of view in case anyone wants to read it. Convincing is not in my power. It depends on everyone's open-mindedness.

The way you escape to my objections shows that you are not in the open-mindness field. I can understand that you take the side of church in this matter. Il y a des athées bien singuliers. But your aggressive –elusive– comments show that you have more than a disagreement. You hate the atheist position and are very comfortable with the Catholic position. You will know why.

 

[David Mo]

And here we leave the historical terrain and enter into the current debate on the science-religion conflict. The problem with religions is that they all have a holy book that is full of atrocities, including those relating to matters of fact. There are two ways to deal with this fact: by closing one self into the holy book (fundamentalism) or by opening up the possibility of a "spiritual" interpretation of it. That is to say, recognizing that Galileo was also right in his theological implications. When science and book do not coincide, the book must be interpreted allegorically. Of course, this presents a religious conflict: one should not believe what the book says, but rather the interpretation that some "wise" men make of the book. The word of God is not heard, but its interpretation. It is logical that fundamentalists do not like this solution. It sounds like covert atheism to them. And they don't lack some reason. A god that is unable to speak directlyby himself seems no god.

The fact is that the Church has adopted Galileo's theses up enven to this point. But instead of acknowledging it, it is looking for a thousand excuses for why it screwed up to the bottom in everything that confronted Galileo. The reason is not only the pride of the popes and bishops, but acknowledging this opens up a terrible doubt: if Luther and the Popes were wrong about Galileo in everything, why should we now believe what their successors say?

Rousseau was very clear. Instead of believing books and popes, the true Christian should seek God within, in a personal dialogue between heart and reason. But of course, this means closing the churches. And that's why the Inquisition went after him and that's why the current church and its "atheist" reinforcements are looking for a thousand ways not to recognize that Galileo was right on all fronts.

 

[TimONeill2]

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm stating my point of view in case anyone wants to read it. Convincing is not in my power. It depends on everyone's open-mindedness.

The close-minded fanatic preaches "open mindedness". Hilarious.

The way you escape to my objections shows that you are not in the open-mindness field.

I'm not in the "wasting my time trying to convince a fanatic" field. Life is too short.

I can understand that you take the side of church in this matter. Il y a des athées bien singuliers. But your aggressive –elusive– comments show that you have more than a disagreement. You hate the atheist position and are very comfortable with the Catholic position. You will know why.

I take the side of objective and rational analysis of history in this matter. Which is why I have the actual historians who specialise in the study of the Galileo and the historiograpy of the debunked Conflict Thesis on my side, whereas you have no historians at all on yours, despite your false claims to the contrary. And your pretentious claim that your creaking and ridiculous defence of outdated nineteenth century myths is somehow "the atheist position" would be highly amusing to historians who are unbelievers such as Ronald Numbers and Maurice Finocchiaro.