Galileo and anti-science attacks

In a discussion I was having, someone attacked the church over Galileo. When I respondedthat Galileo was not persecuted for promoting that the earth revolved around the sun, they presented me with this article from Wikipedia.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Their attack focused mainly upon this point found in the first section, “The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.””

Can you help me explain this?

can you give further information about the “roman inquistion” to which the article refers?

I had an astronomy professor that went on about Galileo and said the “Catholic Church admitted they were wrong” not quite accurate, but not as bad as when we discussed the Big Bang. There was no mention of Fr. Lemaître at all. I don’t think he was anti-Catholic, and he WOULD have known that. I think sometimes some folks just willfully skim over things like that because it presents them with an uncomfortable reality: Science and Religion don’t have to contradict.

Try this for starters: youtube.com/watch?v=sI8PvK3ATK0.

Put basically, Galileo’s personality, coupled with the fact that his views on this matter were not backed up by observational evidence at the time, led to all sorts of problems.

When certain Churchmen claimed that Galileo’s theories were ridiculous insofar as natural philosophy/science are concerned, they were actually quite right based on the best evidence they had available. When they interpreted Scripture to speak of the earth being the center of the universe, they were actually quite right … again, based on the best scientific evidence they had available, which could not be used to force anything other than a literal interpretation.

Furthermore, Galileo was a prideful and arrogant so-and-so. He used to go around to dinner parties, and stage debates with himself wherein he would take both sides of a position to show off how good he was at making arguments. He did that merely for the sake of entertainment; it was a cheap party trick. Of course he was viewed with suspicion … especially when, once again, there was no hard, observational evidence to support his claims, and when he had a reputation for being full of himself.

Galileo was a genius whom the Pope wrote poems about and who intuited the truth about our solar system. And Edgar Allan Poe was a genius who intuited the Big Bang in* Eureka*. But neither based their ideas on arguments that would today be remotely accepted. Indeed, in the case of Galileo, many of his arguments were manifestly untrue: they could be seen as such then as well as now.

See here for more information: geocentrismdebunked.org/galileo-and-the-church/

This should help a lot: catholic.com/search/content/Galileo

Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

Also Galileo was not completely correct from these two proposals:

When depositions in the Galileo matter concluded, the Commissary-General forwarded two propositions of Galileo to eleven theologians (called “Qualifiers”) for their evaluation: (1) The Sun is the center of the world and immovable of local motion, and (2) The Earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but moves according to the whole of itself, also with a diurnal motion.

law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html

OK. Why should it matter whether he was completely correct in his research or, as another poster mentioned, he was an arrogant jerk? He was correct that the earth was not the center of the universe, and the Catholic Church overreacted when he defended his theory against attacks made on biblical grounds and when he (perhaps unintentionally) insulted the Pope.

Please read the following:

catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

Galileo simply stated that he believed his theory true without complete confirmation, but the technology was not available at the time. The Church didn’t mind him presenting his theory as just that, but not as a finally proven one.

Ed

Once again, why should his strong advocacy for heliocentrism (whether proved or not) merit condemnation of heresy and house arrest?

The fact that he was at first warmly received in Rome because of his scientific theory proves that his later fall from favor was because of other things. In fact, a number of his claims were false, he had no way to prove that they were true (even the ones that were), and he was an acerbic jerk who took delight in publicly mocking those who disagreed with him. He was his own worst enemy, and a primary cause of his own problems.

Of course we now ‘know’ the Sun is not the center of the universe as he was proposing. It is merely the center of the solar system (although it also moves according to Kepler’s laws which Galileo claimed he knew about).

His biggest problem, as I understand, was that he told the Church she should re-interpret the scripture based on his theories. Of course this was at the same time Luther was asking for a re-interpretation based on his theories.

Here is a page from a non-Catholic/ non-Christian source that speaks to the problems of Galileo’s theories
ips-planetarium.org/?page=a_appledoorn1990

Exactly, thus the heresy.

Ive often wondered why in our times the church and the secular world seem to agree on just about everything, if a ‘secular scientific expert’ claims something is true, the church pretty much accepts it.

I understand that every civilization in time thinks they have all the right answers, but as history shows us, eventually many if not most are proven wrong or not completely right, so its highly probable many of our scientific facts we agree to be facts, at some point in the future, will be proven wrong, but that could be due to new emerging technologies too, hard to tell what kind of tech we will have in 100 yrs, but Im guessing it will put our tech today, to shame.

wordonfire.org/resources/article/the-myth-of-the-war-between-science-and-religion/331/

That’s a great article, thanks.

Can you give an example of something that a “secular scientific expert” has asserted that the “Church pretty much accepts”?

There’s a difference between being reserved and conservative about new scientific theories in the face of limited evidence (and theories not entirely supported by evidence) and being downright “anti-science.”

That said, and while I agree there were other factors at play, it was a bit of an overreaction, even if due to personality issues and not due to anti-science agenda. It’s those who use this as the basis for the Church being completely anti-science and fundamentalist who miss that, outside of this incident, the Church has a long history of promoting scientific research and scientists and prominent theologians who did not conform to a literal seven days creation who are quite celebrated within the church rather than being declared heretics.

There were other astronomers that had BETTER proofs than Galileo, and Copernicus’s theories were actually more on point than Galileos and were generally lauded by the Church (but Copernicus was like Noooo leave me aloonnee />^</). In fact the people who pressured Copernicus to share his theories were his fellow CLERGYMEN. Back then there was no printing press so if incorrect information got out it was really hard to get back, therefore the church was really strict about what was taught as fact. Thus when Galileo started teaching his own theory around town but the church said, ‘Wait buddy you can’t do that until you prove it. Stop that, please.’ and then he was like ‘Kay, I promise.’ And then he proceeded to continue teaching. Then the church called him back and was like ‘What the heck dude, you promised’ and then Galileo got on the church’s bad side so they put him under house arrest in a beautiful Italian villa with his own servants and he didn’t have to pay a dime and everything and all was well with the world and he even made some ACTUAL discoveries there.

So yeah.:shrug:

Evolution :shrug:

Not too hard to come up with more.

Quantum Mechanics by Shrödinger
Theory of Relativity by Einstein
The psychology behind mental disorders
Anatomy/Physiology
Photoelectric effect by Einstein
The results from Archeology regarding the age of the earth being some 5 billion years
Big Bang Theory (first thought up by a priest, now generally accepted by scientists everywhere)
etc etc

Evolution

Not too hard to come up with more.

Quantum Mechanics by Shrödinger
Theory of Relativity by Einstein
The psychology behind mental disorders
Anatomy/Physiology
Photoelectric effect by Einstein
The results from Archeology regarding the age of the earth being some 5 billion years
Big Bang Theory (first thought up by a priest, now generally accepted by scientists everywhere)
etc etc

Where does the Church “pretty much accept” the theory of relativity?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.