Hercules and Jesus

[TimONeill2]

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."

Given that he was speaking as a theologian about their theological error, I fail to see the relevance here. I agree entirely that they painted themselves into a theological corner by backing the consensus in that way and I noted earlier that they seemed to have learned their lesson and were much more wary later. John Paul II was speaking as a theologian with the benefit of hindsight and an understanding of the modern way theologians approach science. But in 1616 modern science was barely getting off the ground, things like the consensus about geocentrism had been untroubled by new data for about 2000 years and the way you resolved seeming contradictions between interpretations of scripture and natural philosophy was to see if the natural philosophical claim was generally regarded as wrong or, if it wasn't, to see how you could reinterpret the relevant verses.

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.

See above about painting themselves into a corner. Once they nailed their colours to the mast on geocentrism it was hard for them to walk back from that position. They did so, but they did so gradually and as quietly as they could. This was distinctly awkward for them, thus John Paul's note about their theological error.

So "the interpretation of Scripture" is to be left to the Church, and not to be "dabbled in" by lay people?

That was the teaching of the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent in 1546, yes. And it was a key issue in the Counter Reformation. This is news to you?! You can't understand the Galileo Affair unless you understand this context - it's the key to whole thing.

As I have shown, John Paul II admitted error in his predecessors' treatment of Galileo. In this affair you are intent not merely to exculpate the Church, but to defend the Church against the Pope!

I'm sorry, but I can't see where I have said anything that's counter to what he said about their theological error. See above - I have noted myself several times the theological consequences of their ruling and the difficulties that got them into. You seem so keen to find something to disagree with you don't seem to be following what I'm saying at all. I find myself wondering if you are even bothering to try.

 

[TimONeill2]

That is moral relativism carried to an astonishing extreme. I note that you permit Robert Conquest to judge Stalin, on the grounds that he was a contemporary of Stalin; but your statement here rescinds Conquest's license to do that, historical contemporary that he was.

First of all, you'll need to explain how my three questions, can be called "your statement". Secondly, you'll need to explain how my questions can be construed to even imply any contradiction of what I said about how our ability to sensibly judge the past recedes over time, to a point where eventually it simply makes no sense at all.

 

[David Mo]

I have no problem with people doing that. I have a genuine problem who attack the modern church for historical evils, especially if those evils are half-understood, distorted or simply imaginary.

Is "half-understood", "distorted" or "simply imaginary" to affirm that the different Christian churches had jailed, tortured and killed ("occasionally" burned) many people for the only and simple reason that they had manifested different beliefs? Is "half-understood", etc., to affirm that many of these people were imprisoned, etc. because they placed the science or the reason out of reach of the power of Church or faith?

Nobody discuss the right of the Church to reject rationality and science. This is other debate. We reject the power of the Church to condemn and to silence science and free thought.

So any justification (even partial) of the condemn of Bruno or Galileo is aberrant. To say that Bruno killed himself is an insult to the inteligence. There are not executioners in suicides.

 

[Thor 2]

We appear to agree that attacking the modern Church for historical evils can easily become silly.

Well I have had some experience in arguing with modern day Christians about this aspect. The general consensus amongst them is that, sure those guys in the past had it wrong and did the wrong things, but we modern day Christians, have a better handle on things and are right on track.

 

[Craig B]

Given that he was speaking as a theologian about their theological error, I fail to see the relevance here ... theological error ... theological error ... theological consequences ...

You think that if people - even theologians - had an

understanding of the physical world's structure (that) was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture​

then they were making only a "theological" error? And that the confinement of a scholar, and the suppression of the discourse about the physical world's structure was merely a "theological" consequence?

 

[David Mo]

Well I have had some experience in arguing with modern day Christians about this aspect. The general consensus amongst them is that, sure those guys in the past had it wrong and did the wrong things, but we modern day Christians, have a better handle on things and are right on track.

I don't know what "modern Christians" do you refer. Of course, not these nor these.

Yes, in the last times it is possible to find some tolerant Christians. Even the pope Francesco have claimed for laicism! But in my country at least they are a (respectable) minority.

 

[Craig B]

Well I have had some experience in arguing with modern day Christians about this aspect. The general consensus amongst them is that, sure those guys in the past had it wrong and did the wrong things, but we modern day Christians, have a better handle on things and are right on track.

They say, like JP II, that their predecessors were "wrong", do they? Good for them. They apply moral criteria to the behaviour of their predecessors? They don't invoke total moral relativism?

... how exactly we define these "evils". "Evil" according to us? According to them? According to their opponents?

I nearly wrote "absolute moral relativism" there, and that oxymoronic designation might even be an appropriate name for this school of thought.

 

[3point14]

Thought this was going to be about two new recruits to The Avengers.

 

[TimONeill2]

You think that if people - even theologians - had an "understanding of the physical world's structure (that) was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture" then they were making only a "theological" error?

I'm pointing out to you that the error your quote is referring to concerns how and when to interpret certain passages of the Bible literally. That's a theological question and John Paul II was saying they got the answer wrong.

And that the confinement of a scholar, and the suppression of the discourse about the physical world's structure was merely a "theological" consequence?

Oh please - that's just feeble even for straw-manning. Try to focus on what I actually say, not some nonsense you're making up as you go along.

 

[Craig B]

I'm pointing out to you that the error your quote is referring to concerns how and when to interpret certain passages of the Bible literally. That's a theological question and John Paul II was saying they got the answer wrong.

It's also a scientific question about what our sources of knowledge about the natural world are. And the Church's confinement of Galileo and suppression of debate was a juridical or penal measure, far outside the legitimate domain of theological activity

ETA That JP II believed that his predecessors were wrong in these fields too is made clear by the ceremony surrounding Galileo's rehabilitation.

359 years later, the Church finally agreed. At a ceremony in Rome, before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II officially declared that Galileo was right. The formal rehabilitation was based on the findings of a committee of the Academy the Pope set up in 1979, soon after taking office. The committee decided the Inquisition had acted in good faith, but was wrong.​

End ETA.

Oh please - that's just feeble even for straw-manning. Try to focus on what I actually say, not some nonsense you're making up as you go along.

What you said, and I didn't make it up, was

Given that he was speaking as a theologian about their theological error ...​

That's what I focussed on.

 

[TimONeill2]

It's also a scientific question about what our sources of knowledge about the natural world are.

How can whether the Bible should be interpreted literally be a "scientific question"? Again, the scientific consensus of 1616 drove their purely theological conclusion that, in this case, the Bible should be interpreted literally. What John Paul II is saying is that they made a theological error and they should have reserved judgement. But he fully acknowledges the limits imposed on them by their historical context. Have you actually read his whole statement?

And the Church's confinement of Galileo and suppression of debate was a juridical or penal measure, far outside the legitimate domain of theological activity

Not in 1632 it wasn't.

ETA That JP II believed that his predecessors were wrong in these fields too is made clear by the ceremony surrounding Galileo's rehabilitation.

359 years later, the Church finally agreed. At a ceremony in Rome, before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II officially declared that Galileo was right. The formal rehabilitation was based on the findings of a committee of the Academy the Pope set up in 1979, soon after taking office. The committee decided the Inquisition had acted in good faith, but was wrong.​

I'm afraid the garbled report by New Scientist doesn't actually reflect what was said very well at all. Nowhere did he say anything as simplistic as "Galileo was right" and nor does he even say "the Inquisition was wrong". He noted the theological error mentioned above, saying:

"the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so."

He goes on to say:

"Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. "If Scripture cannot err", he wrote to Benedetto Castelli, "certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways"."

What he says on both counts is purely about theology.

What you said, and I didn't make it up, was

Given that he was speaking as a theologian about their theological error ...​

That's what I focussed on.

But which you still seem to have failed to grasp.​

 

[Craig B]

I'm afraid the garbled report by New Scientist doesn't actually reflect what was said very well at all. Nowhere did he say anything as simplistic as "Galileo was right" and nor does he even say "the Inquisition was wrong" ... What he says on both counts is purely about theology.

He said it to the Academy of Science, which indicated that he thought it fell within the field of competence of that body.

Now, the question of whether science should be subservient to the contents of allegedly divinely-inspired books, or whether it should bow to observation and experiment, is as much a scientific as a theological issue. The question whether people should be placed in confinement and silenced because of disagreement with the tenets of a state religion, is more a juridical than a theological question.

 

[The Big Dog]

See my reply above. Thanks. And it should have read nasty or public, not nastyor public. Sorry for the typo. And I must admit when you used the term "Bro" I thought that you were spying referring to another typo of mine, but I gather now that you are using the "Hey, bro" "LOL" "Hey dude" form of English. Sorry- I am still stuck on the "Cool" era.

Let us start again. Your post 75 does not contain a detailed response or a nuanced analysis. Your post contains this hand wave:

"The Church never was angry with Galileo for his scientific theories; only because he stated them in too nastyor public a manner!" Sure...

poor form.

Galileo's greatest sin was mocking the Pope as a "Simpleton." Pride goeth before the fall.

 

[Giordano]

Let us start again. Your post 75 does not contain a detailed response or a nuanced analysis. Your post contains this hand wave:

"The Church never was angry with Galileo for his scientific theories; only because he stated them in too nastyor public a manner!" Sure...

poor form.

Galileo's greatest sin was mocking the Pope as a "Simpleton." Pride goeth before the fall.

Okay, starting again:
My post #75, paragraph immediately above the one you twice quoted, and exactly as I indicated in my post to which you replied:

"In February 1615 the Cathalic 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. "

As I already noted twice, clearly my use of "sure" was not my entire response by any means, but a direct allusion to my more specific response, in the very same post.

It was by no means a hand wave (as much as you would like to find it to be) in that the entire post was a specific, perhaps even overly wordy response to another member's statement. If you now wish to tell me that this was not a sufficiently detailed description of the motivations behind the charges Galileo faced (apparently as you would have preferred), okay. In fact you will find in my other recent posts acknowledgement that this charge of heresy due to his science theories was one of other issues he had with the Church. My post, as I already indicated, was designed specifically to address the issue of if Galileo faced any charges due to his scientific theories and was never meant to be a nuanced, detailed discussion of all the unwritten motivations behind this charge, the Church's laws, or his responses. If you wish to know why not, I again urge you to look at the title of this thread; if you wish to have a fully detailed discussion of the entire affair, then starting another thread would be far more approporiate. As it is, I fear we are increasingly lurching off the thread topic (which you yourself have indicated is the question of plagiarism in the bible).

You will also note in my post #75 what I think of claims, often advanced by Church apologists, that Galileo's greatest sin (your use of the term- do you mean sin in a theological sense?) was mocking a character named Simpleton, who was apparently used by Galileo in a text as a pseudonym for the Pope. This my have added to the Church's ire, but clearly they felt it important to charge Galileo with heresy specifically due to his support for the Copernican theory. Also when Galileo recanted, he had to recant his scientific theory, so again the Church clearly considered this as the key part of the heresy charge, and was not just focused on his satire as to the Pope.

Here is a citation of his recantation- completely focused on recanting his scientific theory, and does not directly mention any of his "insults" of the Pope. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html

In looking into it further, I had my memory confirmed that the only formal charge laid against Galileo were in terms of his Copernican theory. Your statement as to him embarrassing the Pope was never a formal part of the charges, but is instead an interpretation by others of the (behind the scenes) motivation for the heresy charge. Direct quote of charges: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
Quite different from your own quote (unattributed) as to the "real" charges. What you quote is actually an interpretation (probably a modern one), not the actual Papal condemnation.

Come on- the Church charged Galileo, an old man at the time, with heresy and showed him the instruments of torture. If he had not recanted, they would have tortured him and God(?) knows what else! As it was, he was subjected to house arrest for the rest of his life. Are apologists really claiming that writing a text with a character who could be interpreted as an embarrassment to the Pope was a proper justification for torture, probable imprisonment, and possible death even if we ignore the charges against his science? Would that a better justification of the Church's actions than a claim of heresy based on his scientific theories? Would this somehow make the Church's actions okay, reasonable, or forgivable? Because that is exactly what focusing on this "nuance" is seeking to achieve.

 

[Craig B]

@ Giordano. Well said!

 

[The Big Dog]

Okay,.....

That is odd, you focus on the formal charges but ignore the previous history and communications and indeed encouragement from the Pope.

Here is a bit more nuance that I encourage you to fully explore:

Eight years later Galileo received permission from the new pope, the scholarly Urban VIII, to write about the Copernican system as long as he treated it as merely hypothesis. After many delays, Galileo's Dialogue Con- cerning the Two Chief World Systems appeared in 1632. In it, Galileo not only unambiguously defended the heliocentric system as physically true, but also made the tactical mistake of placing the pope's admonition about its hypothetical character in the mouth of the slow-witted Aristotelian, Simplicio. Although the official imprimatur of the church had been secured, Galileo's enemies, including the now angry Urban VIII, determined to bring him to trial.

Galileo might have been right on the science but he let his ego get him into trouble Blunder

 

[Craig B]

That is odd, you focus on the formal charges but ignore the previous history and communications and indeed encouragement from the Pope.

Here is a bit more nuance that I encourage you to fully explore:

Galileo might have been right on the science but he let his ego get him into trouble Blunder

I have explored your source. The very next words following the passage you cite are these:

The inquisition ultimately condemned Galileo and forced him to recant. Although sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life, he lived comfortably in a villa outside Florence. He was neither tortured nor imprisoned-simply silenced.​

I can well see why you broke off rather than be obliged to copy these disgraceful words.

Silenced indeed. The whole subject was placed on the Index till 1748, but who cares? For the silenced scholar was living in comfortable confinement, and not tortured, but merely threatened with torture. No problems, then.

 

[The Big Dog]

I have explored your source. The very next words following the passage you cite are these:

The inquisition ultimately condemned Galileo and forced him to recant. Although sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life, he lived comfortably in a villa outside Florence. He was neither tortured nor imprisoned-simply silenced.​

I can well see why you broke off rather than be obliged to copy these disgraceful words.

Silenced indeed. The whole subject was placed on the Index till 1748, but who cares? For the silenced scholar was living in comfortable confinement, and not tortured, but merely threatened with torture. No problems, then.

that is ironic, I actually left them off for the opposite reason: they appeared to intentionally underplay the severity of the sentence.

Considering that Galileo (through arrogance or ignorance) betrayed and mocked his most powerful Patron, Urban the VIII, some might say that given the political situation of the time he got off easy.

 

[Giordano]

Not for the claim that they suppressed scientists as well as religious non-conformists.



No, I did not. I disagreed in a manner that requires people who make specific claims about history to back them up. You said that the Church suppressed scientists as well as religious non-conformists. I've challenged you twice now to back up the "scientists" part of that claim.



Probably because I have no idea what that means. Where have I made this "excuse", because I don't recognise that odd statement in anything I have ever said.




I don't know why I would need to do this. Or how exactly we define these "evils". "Evil" according to us? According to them? According to their opponents?

1. But you agree that the Church suppressed Galileo and I documented (also see my above penultimate post) that he was officially condemned because his science differed from accepted Church teachings. You have tried to state that the Church did so in large part because the Galileo was going against "accepted science." Well the actual Papal condemnation focuses on Galileo's violation of Church teaching, not on his lack of orthodoxy with pre-existing "science." And are you really trying to state that it was the role of the Church to judge and support what it considered accepted science by threatening anyone challenging it with a charge of heresy, imprisonment, and torture? Gee, with these sort of threats, it doesn't surprise me that the few scientist challenged the accepted paradigms and therefore the "scientific theories" then in the public domain were the ones that matched Church theology. Would this concept somehow make the Chruch's charges of heresy more forgivable?

I also don't know why you seem to feel that we must limit this discussion to scientific martyrs. Science is not a limitation in this thread, and it appears to me that the Church's actions against other theologies (or lack oftheology) is at least equally appropriate.

2. As to my claim that apologists often attempt to sell the concept that it were theological disagreements that led the Church to identify heretics and severely punish them, rather than scientific disagreements: as I have stated in multiple of my recent posts, I don't see that as a better justification. What if Bruno was burned at the stake because he was a mystic opposing official Church teachings, not because of any of his science? Does that make it better or acceptable? What if the motivation for threatening to torture Galileo was really his sly attempts to insult the Pope- is that really better and more forgivable than the actual charges filed that accused his science of being heretical?

3. As to the highlighted statement: I asked about evil as YOU would judge it. That very wording is in both of my posts. So take it from there: what actions of the historical Catholic Church do YOU see as having been evil, if any? I ask because I don't get the sense from what you have already posted that you feel any of the Church's action ever fit this description. But no, of course you don't need to answer the question. It is just an Internet thread- you can ignore anything you wish. I just thought it might be interesting to get your views on this.

 

[Craig B]

that is ironic, I actually left them off for the opposite reason: they appeared to intentionally underplay the severity of the sentence.

They display seeming inability to understand the significance of the sentence. It's as if their author was trying to refute the idea of a war between religion and science by saying, How could there be a war? In wars people get killed. That didn't happen. Or tortured. Here mere threats. Or imprisoned in rat-infested dungeons. But here comfortable confinement. Silenced. Everyone was merely silenced. What kind of war is that?

My writing this doesn't imply that I think there was such a war. I'm merely commenting on the reasoning in the source you linked.