Slashdot Mirror
Statue of Galileo Planned for Vatican
Reservoir Hill writes "Four hundred years after it put Galileo on trial for heresy the Vatican is to complete its rehabilitation of the scientist by erecting a statue of him inside Vatican walls. The planned statue is to stand in the Vatican gardens near the apartment in which Galileo was incarcerated. He was held there while awaiting trial in 1633 for advocating heliocentrism, the Copernican doctrine that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The move coincides with a series of celebrations in the run-up to next year's 400th anniversary of Galileo's development of the telescope. In January Pope Benedict XVI called off a visit to Sapienza University, Rome, after staff and students accused him of defending the Inquisition's condemnation of Galileo. The Vatican said that the Pope had been misquoted and since the episode, several of the professors have retracted their protest."
We won't live to see Darwin's statue, but this is a start!
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Well, if the Church wants to give the impression that they want to fix their mistakes and apologize for them, I think it would be better if they apologized for supporting dictatorships and benefiting from them (as they did in Spain for 40 years, for example).
They could also get rid of child molesters and stop paying (lots of) money to keep things under wraps, which obviously is not the best way to solve the problem.
These kind of news really pisses me off. A statue to Galileo 400 years late? WTF?
It's one thing for the Vatican to apologise for its past mistreatment of a figure like Galileo, but erecting a statue of him? I don't know - it seems almost sensationalist. If I'd been tortured and mistreated by an institution, I wouldn't want them to have a statue of me as a tourist attraction! Faith will always be against certain types of scientific enquiry, and I think the Vatican should be honest enough to admit so rather than making an almost-martyr of this one famous figure in order to garner public approval.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
They should just shut up and read Small Gods by Terry Pratchett:
"Gods on the Discworld exist as long as people believe in them and their power grows as their followers increase. This is a philosophy echoing the real-world politics of the power of religion and is most detailed in the novel Small Gods. If people should cease believing in a particular god (say, if the religion becomes more important than faith) the god begins to fade and, eventually, will "die", becoming little more than a faded wispy echo."
Buanzo Consulting - 15 Years of GNU/Linux experience, for you.
while galileo was only imprissoned and threatend with torture, giordano bruno was murdered by the chruch...
Galileo!
Sadly for Giordano Bruno, he didn't have Galileo's powerful protectors and was a bit too all-out mystical. Roger Bacon just got locked up for years for suggesting that Arab science should be adopted to ease the work of the poor - can't have peasants having free time to think about things. However, the Church at least has a history of adopting ideas once they've been safely mainstream for a few hundred years. Some of the Protestant sects seem intent on actually going backwards, hence the drive towards Bible literalism (which wouldn't have been understood by most of the early Church fathers, but is a peculiar product of 19th century Protestantism separated by an ocean from its roots.)
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Last time I looked the catholic church didn't take votes on This Years Beliefs. What the pope says goes and all the religious sheep believe whatever he says. This applies to almost all religious unfortunately , substitute pope for mullah/rabbi etc
There's another side to the Galileo debate - that he was the victim of a political persecution by fellow scientists who felt Galileo was making fools out of them. It was they, not the church, who put forward the idea that Heliocentrism would lead to sun worship. Galileo kept much of his research secret not because he feared the Church, but because he feared the rebuke of his fellow scientists.
Read here:
http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/scheiner.html
Also read this excerpt from Columbia Humanities Professor Robert Nisbet:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/nisbet1.html
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
A fully erect Galileo in the Vatican Garden. It sems hard to belive.
excellent summary!
I know the Catholic church has it's dark side in history, however, I'm very pleased that one of the worlds foremost religion is doing such a fantastic job 'respecting' science. Before you blast me with examples of how the Catholic church is blundering (big bang?), remember that they are (as far as I know), the only _major_ Christian church that supports evolution. Furthermore, I do have a lot of respect for the Jesuits and their pursuit of science. Finally, the Vatican may not 100% pro-science, but they seem far from being anti-science.
Though I'm not Catholic (atheist), I respect the Vatican for trying to understand how science merge with their faith, instead of bending science to their faith. Considering the horror stories that I see and hear about creationist faith (cringe!), this is a breath of fresh air!
My $0.02 CAD
Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
I'm not sure they have enough space for all the mistakes they have made...
if they really want to apologise for the some of the more unconscionable actions of the Catholic church, then let them put up a statue of Julius Fromm !
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Fromm)
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Ever heard of overpopulation?
It's a real problem in some parts of the world, parts on which the Catholic church, via their humanitarian/missionary programs, have a lot of influence on.
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
(Sorry folks; just my zippy-the-pinhead moment of the month)
Erections should really be prohibited inside the Vatican. What on earth is the Catholic church coming to?
when are we getting a statue of darwin at oral roberts university?
my money is on the year 2578
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Personally, as a non-theist (I don't care for the term atheist as it implies hostility toward religious people), all I can do is respect these great men for their part in helping explain the universe.
Galileo would have been deeply honored (or so I believe), so I respect what the Church is doing here.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
From the wiki page:
On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.
I hope Galileo is celebrated with his right arm raised and his middle finger extended, in the time honored way. I'm sure if he were alive that's what he would want.
When it turns out that torture, murder, intimidation and incarceration can't change the facts, a major religion of the day finally tries to repair its reputation by acknowledging one of the scientists who rubbed their noses in reality...four centuries late.
Something to remember when a modern would-be theocracy attempts to use its power to deny reality in American labs and classrooms. Science moves on, leaving the morons behind.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Don't forget that his theory of atomism clashed with the Trent's doctrine of transubstantiation. Redondi thinks the heliocentrism controversy was designed to cover that up, although his position is a bit weak, and smacks of conspiracy.
--
make install -not war
From what I've heard, the Vatican still has boxes full of, ahem...those from the Great Emasculation.
Uh, you do know the Catholic church condemns all forms of birth control, right? Including condoms.
Maybe I am too sleepy to get the sarcasm.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
Hopefully said statue will wear a condom. The Vatican wants to show how far they've come and admit their mistakes. I guess we'll have to wait another 400 years for the tribute to the little rubber thing...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Excerpt from "LETTER TO A BRAZILIAN MASON UNEXPURGATED", by Marcelo Ramos Motta: "Several times, during the last fifteen hundred years, one or another group of those Initiates attempted to re-establish openly their cult. Whenever they did this, the Roman Church intervened with insane fury, slaughtering men, women and children, to the point that, as was the case with the Albigenses, even medieval captains, men made brutish by the violence of the savage battles of the times, became disturbed by the massacre and went to ask the Pope whether, maybe, they were not killing innocent people along with the guilty (the Albigenses died so virtuously, you understand). And it was on this occasion that the Bishop of Rome honored the "Christian" tradition of his church with these memorable words: "Kill them all; God will know his own." The slaughter, Dr. G., included even newborn babies... And it wasn't, Dr. G., as if the Bishop of Rome were victim of blind faith in the crass theology of his creed; it was not as if he truly believed in the existence of a "savior" called "Jesus", and believed that the Albigenses were "Satan's creatures". No, Dr. G., there was not even the explanation of fanaticism for the decision of the Bishop of Rome - for the Roman Popes know, have always known, that there never was any "Jesus Christ"! It is perhaps hard for you to believe this? Then remember the historic words, uttered in a moment of carelessness induced by overbearing vanity, one of the most cynical and most prosperous of the popes, Leo X: "Quantum nobis prodest haec fabula Christi!" That is: "How we are helped by this fable of the Christ!" You must remember that the original documents of what the Romans call "Christianity" are preserved in the Secret Library of the Vatican. It is the simplest thing for the extremely few prelates whom the Cur ia grant access to such documents to verify where facts stop and fiction begins. I think we have said enough about the past history of the Church of Rome. It must not be necessary that I remind you of Joan of Arc, or of Jules de Retz, against whom the most horrible accusations were made, no evidence of the charges was presented, and his judges and accusers were his heirs; or of Jacques de Molays and the rest of the Templars, of or Michel Servet, or of the Emperor Friedrich Hohenstaufen, or of Johann Huss, or of Henri IV (murdered by order of the Jesuits), or of the Cathars, or of the Albigenses, or of the Huguenots, or of the Jews and Arabs of Spain and Portugal, or of the French, Germans, Scottish and Irish Gnostics who were called "witches", and forced to confess absurdities under diabolical tortures, or of Galileo, or of Cagliostro, or of the immense quantity of Masons whose bones whiten the roads that take to Rome.... I think that, to a Mason, it cannot be necessary to speak further of the past of that infamous church." Read the whole document, if you so wish: http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/dplanet/motta/moma2.htm
*deeper voice* Galileo!
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
In addendum to the above post, I'd like to point out that the Catholic church represent about half of the Christian population and 1/6th of the world's population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_church), so I'd like to consider it major, but not exclusive.
For those that I've offended: s/the only major Christian church/a Christian church/.
Thanks for pointing out other (mostly European?) churches that consolidate instead of bending science. Forgive my ignorance. Since I live north of what seems to be the biggest hive of creationism fundamentalist, it sometimes sound like every religion is science bashing. Usually, their statements are hilarious but I absolutely abhor the tone of the fundamentalist bible-blabber.
For anybody that cares, I'm curious to hear what other churches/religions have a position similar to the Vatican on science.
Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
Fucking hypocrites...
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
Galileo basically disproved Aristotelianism - the belief that the Universe was made of 5 elements, that 4 of them comprised the corruptible lower Universe, and that the perfect outer Universe was made of the 5th element. He did this experimentally by pointing a telescope at the supposedly perfect bodies and showing that they had surface features.
He also identified the orbits of the Galilean moons of Jupiter, thus demonstrating that, in the Universe, small bodies could orbit round a large one. He showed that a system of satellites was not unique.
He also did valuable early work in dynamics - the cannon ball story is long exploded - by building precise apparatus and timing systems for measuring the movement of balls rolling down slopes. It was not his fault that he did not know that gravitational potential energy was partly converted into rotational kinetic energy as well as translational energy, or that, in the absence of a definition of velocity, he did not get the formulae of motion into their modern forms. It is also not his fault that he got frustrated because the reaction of the people who he tried to demonstrate his evidence to was, in effect, to stick their hands over their ears and scream "can't hear you". It is also not his fault that Kepler was addicted to mystical ideas (such as that the orbits of the planets fit inside a nesting of the Platonic solids), and lacked a modern marthematical framework, which, at the time, greatly obscured the value of what he was doing.
As for suggesting that Galileo would "cluelessly" hope the Pope would find Simpleton funny, anybody who knows anything about Italian society at that era would know that to be nonsense. This was a society in which men fought to the death over perceived insults. My guess is that Galileo hoped the Pope would see arguments he supported being made by an idiot, and decide to forget about them quietly.
However, the Inquisition and its mates had far too much invested in Aristotle (and not being made to look ridiculous) and the rest is history.
Revisiting this before posting I am tempted to add that there is a great deal of misunderstanding of people like Newton, Galileo and Kepler due to anachronism. They did not live in a modern society, they did not have access to modern mathematics, instruments and communications. You cannot write about them without researching their background. But, believe me, if you do it is endlessly fascinating and there is much to learn for our own time. There is a huge amount of published material, in fact these were guys who could write their own books. They are worth reading. Both the Dialogue (Galileo) and at least part of the Principia (Newton) should be on every nerd's reading list, if only because it cures you of the idea that everything exciting in science happened since 1940.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
No, they don't condemn *ALL* forms. They endorse the rhythm method, which is effective enough to legitimately be considered a form of birth control. The biggest problem with the rhythm method is that it requires what might seem to some people like a disproportionate amount of self-discipline to be effective, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work for those that manage it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Historical Fact:
Galileo was an asshole who refused to subject his work to peer review. Could not prove his theory at the time but was so egotistical that he claimed it as fact. Was critical and insulting of his contemporary peers dismissing their work as completely baseless. (Not only were some of these contemporaries right on, but their work could have helped substantiate Galileo's.) Then Galileo in fact insulted one of his biggest supporters publicly (who also happened to be both one of the top political entities and the head of the review board). Because this head of the review board (the Pope) asked Galileo just to state his premise as a theory until he could prove it.
The Catholic Church censured Galileo. This resulted in a house arrest, in a very nice house with catered food and all his needs met. Or in other words, a back-handed censure that actually included a patronage enabling Galileo to continue his work.
Sadly, most of this is lost in the popular sensationalism of Galileo. If this event happened today....Galileo wouldn't be lauded. He'd be considered one of those sensationalist jerks that goes to the media before peer reviewing and proving his work. And then trashes and insults every other scientist who comments on the matter or claims Galileo is mistaken, or has yet to prove his work.
***
What this is really about.... "Politics" to accommodate a bunch of uneducated, unlearned individuals who lack any knowledge of history (and probably not much more of science)...who like to consider themselves scientifically minded and well-educated, when they're not.
(A good example is most of the people commenting in this Slashdot thread who probably don't have a single iota about Galileo other than the motif that somehow the Catholic Church was imprisoned him because they didn't want people to believe the earth revolved around the sun. )
Because you uneducated mis-thinking fools need to be placated. You gribe about science and the church. But your idol was a man who made great folly's and while contributing much to science also fell far short of it as well.
Here's some education on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#_note-contrary_to_scripture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
... and read Koestler's Sleepwalkers !
I believe that your "troll" mod is probably deserved. But since I currently live in Indiana, one of the "fly-over states" I feel the need to point out that the majority of the most recent fights over teaching evolution occur in Florida. A state where everyone lives within 100 miles of the ocean. There was a post on this web site yesterday about a bill in florida to allow teachers to teach whatever they want in class, even to contravene the standards for the state with the goal of allowing them to teach creationism at the expense of evolution. Now I'll not argue that it appears to be the more rural individuals that buy into this, but don't go turning this into a rural v. urban, or red state/blue state thing. Ignorance is found everywhere. Also, while I currently live in Indiana I'm originally from Massachusetts and I know more "creationists" there then I do here.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Actually claimed that the sun was the center of the universe, which is what *really* put Galileo in trouble in the first place.
\u262D = \u5350
If I were galileo and someone told me that one day this would happen, i'd be fucking livid. They say jesus had to die on the cross to make up for the sins of humanity. If i were galileo i'd want the pope crucified for the sickening, disgusting, deranged and perverse crimes of the catholic church. so there you go, crucify the pope and disband the catholic church. That would be a true demonstration of remorse, rather than this insulting platitude.
Actually, The Church does not support "The Rhythm Method," it supports Natural Family Planning. There is a significant difference and it is extremely effective when followed correctly, something that is no more difficult than remembering to brush one's teeth every morning.
Ahh, I've tried it. And it's only as easy as remembering to brush your teeth if brushing your teeth was a LOT more enjoyable!
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
We could put it right outside the state capital of Alabama, next to the ten commandments and confederate flag memorials.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It's informative. I have both dogs and chickens and have cleaned up the poop of both.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
It is not the building of a statue that concerns me. As it was made very clear the pope was going to have a speech in favour of scientific research. Last pope also hinted at the string theory like a demonstation of the creation of god.
The bad part was that the pope was not permitted to speak. The government asked him to disattend the appointment for security reasons. It is another sad episode in wich on behalf of intolerance some one hundred leftist activists (or red fascists) enhacted a modern inquisition in order to block this speech. It concerns me deeply that because of those idiotic activists my university had been roamed by armed police forces in full anti-riot garnishment for over 2 days.
Things like those should not be dealt lightly as they have been.
As to peer review, since the very concept was in its infancy, or had not yet emerged, it's hard to justify the accusation that Galileo did not subject himself to it. In fact, by publishing at all, I'd argue that he was indeed subjecting his work to public scrutiny and criticism.
That is if you don't consider his published observations and data proof, or indeed facts. And no doubt as distinct from his detractors who could prove their geocentric theories by citing biblical passages and Aristotle.
They threatened to burn him alive. To set him on fire, still an offical punishment for heresy at the time. They banned his books. They locked him in a prison, which while pretty and comfortable, was still a prison. If this is "back-handed censure", I'm glad people aren't subjected to it nowadays.
The essential facts are preserved. Namely that
a) Galileo made objective scientific observations
b) Galileo published these observations and his theories on their meaning
c) The Catholic church considered his views to be heeretical
d) The church used its political influence to force Galileo, under threat, to publically retract his theories.
e) Galileo publicly retracted his theories.
A lot of people pass over that final fact. A scientist, and Galileo certainly was one, had to give up his theories, because he was threated with punishment if he did not do so. I'm sure a lot of people think that Galileo "didn't really" change his opinions. Well tough. What you think is irrelevant. He publicly retracted them. Something that would not have happened if he had lived in a freer society. Lets all hope that we live in such a society, and will continue to do so.
I'm sure in todays age of religious revivalism that there are many church apologists in the case of Galileo, and others like it. I'm sure that they will poke and prod at inconsistencies and minor points to cast doubt on the case and to paint organised religion in a better light. It's all in some way part of the modern tirade against science by religious interests. Wiser people should stick to the essentials of the case.
May the Maths Be with you!
The rhythm method, aside from sounding like a corny jazz outfit, simply does not work. It does not work as a form of 'birth control'; it does not even work effectively as a form of family planning.
Encouraging people to have sex without protection is incredibly irresponsible. More customers for the Catholic Church, of course, which is the point of the whole exercise. This was a reasonable approach at a time when many children died before reaching adulthood, a population-building policy shrouded in religious arguments and mysticism so that the public would swallow it (so to speak). Bit of a shame about the whole AIDS thing, however, and the creation of children who the parents are incapable or unwilling to support.
Yeah, like this really makes everything up to Galileo -- NOT!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The Catholic church has no objection with the theory of evolution. Sure, it was a fundamental change of belief during Darwin's time that people needed time to digest, just as the probabilistic nature of quantum physics came as a shock to our Newtonian physics-based thought, but after a thorough hashing of the data, theories and philosophies involved, the Catholic church concluded that the Bible was not to be interpreted literally. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, one of the scientists involved in the research on Peking Man, was a Catholic priest (a Jesuit, I think).
... oh, I dunno, electrons are sentient, or something. Well, there had better be some damn good proof of this before they start teaching this to my kids in the classroom!
You might be thinking of various fundamentalist Christian denominations that attack evolution as being contrary to a literal (ie. fundamentalist) interpretation of the Bible.
With Galileo, heliocentrism was similarly a shocking, fundamental change of belief compared to the prevailing world view at the time, Christian or not. The Catholic church sent this theologian, Bellarmine (think he was a Cardinal, ie. above an archbishop but below the Pope) to adjudicate the dispute. Bellarmine said that there was nothing wrong with Galileo teaching his theory of heliocentrism, but until he had conclusive proof, he should say that it was a theory and not proven.
It's easy to look back 400 years and point out the now well-known flaws in knowledge, but you have to realize that any fundamental shift in human knowledge is going to warrant controversy and demand for more proof before it is accepted. I mean, imagine if someone came up with this ridiculous-sounding theory that
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Yes, maybe the statue should be made out of iron!
Jolyon
(Ok, I'll get my coat)
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
These wussies in Vatican are just a bunch of flip-floppers ! What do they think, do they know better than what's written in the Book ? And now, they're worshiping a guy that they nearly burned 400 years ago. What's wrong with you, people ? Can't you stick to your beliefs ?
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
While most of what you say is correct, 'rhythm' incorrectly describes current methods of practice. Rhythm is only about 93% (thats 70 pregnancies per year per 1000 women) effective due primarily to the fact that ovulation can be delayed through sickness or the fact that some women naturally have longer cycles than the standard 28 days.
Modern methods are called Natural Family Planning, and require scientific observations and recording to accurately determine when a woman is actually fertile. There are three different styles of NFP called temperature only (4 days of elevated temps indicate post ovulation infertility), mucus only (Billings or Creighton, 4 days of lack of mucus after the fertile time), and the Symptothermal method (STM) (combines the other two, most commonly 3 days of both mucus and temperature indication of infertility). A German study into the effectiveness of the STM found it to be 99.6% effective when used correctly, that is 4 accidental pregnancies per 1000 women in one year. The actual effectiveness in the real world is 98.2%. Depending on what sources you use, hormonal contraceptives tend to be about 93% effective in real world use, with a perfect use rate similar to the STM.
Disclaimer: My wife and I use and teach STM NFP, but receive no financial benefit from it other than not having to pay for artificial methods.
If you are going to mention it, at least mention it correctly.. In January Pope Benedict XVI called off a visit to Sapienza University, Rome, after staff and students accused him of defending the Inquisition's condemnation of Galileo. should read In January Pope Benedict XVI called off a visit to Sapienza University, Rome, after staff and students accused him of defending the Inquisition's condemnation of Galileo using false information that they found on Wikipedia.
Wasn't it Asimov who said that science decisively won the argument with faith when churches started putting up lightning conductors?
-- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
There are minor, but vocal group in the US of Bible literalists. This phenomena is mostly as US one.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yeah, no one's ever been murdered in the name of atheism.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Not to complain of the Jesuits. I was actually taught about Newton by a Jesuit. When someone pointed out to him that Newton was, in effect, a somewhat socially dysfunctional Unitarian, his view was in effect, "well, Newton was a genius, God creates geniuses, ergo since God knows what he is doing, that was right for Newton."
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
evolutionist conspire globally.
"hen they teach and research science for a living"
and yet they can't find any holes with evolution. This smack of argument from authority.
The scientist who think evolution isn't science are in the very, very small minority.
There are no arguments against evolution that hold any water. Not anymore.
That said, if the have an alternative view, they only need to present falsifiable tests, and make prediction with it. The scientific community would accept that.
The discovery institute doesn't believe any of the geological data, none of the astronomical data. as well as a whole bunch of other science with data that says the earth is over 6000 years old.
Young earth is as bad as flat earth.
I am saying that the 'controversy' is among a few deluded individuals, hardly enough to be considered a 'contraversy' any more then the moon landing is a 'controversy'
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I only foe folks so I don't have to see their posts (reserved for troll and flame types).
I trim my foes list down every January, as part of my annual renewal of hope in the human animal. I remove anyone from my list anyone who hasn't posted in a few months, or those whose posts seem to be getting + rather than - mods lately.
It works to keep my foes list from spiraling out of control.
Oddly enough, someone I removed from my foes list emailed me and asked to have himself added back.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
These statues should be placed in the Pantheon. It has been standing empty for centuries.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I'm guessing Richard Dawkins's statue will be next. Now that would be funny...
Esta es una firma en Espanol.
Counterpoint of order: You are wrong. Galileo was not "imprisoned for using a Papal imprimatur" on his book. He was imprisoned because he was accused of writing about heliocentrism, after he'd been told not to by the Catholic Church. Hey, that makes it all OK, doesn't it?
There's actually some dispute over exactly what he was told not to. It seems pretty clear that Galileo's personal understanding was that he was told not to advocate heliocentrism, so the book he wrote didn't explicitly affirm it one way or another -- it just laid out the arguments. But the people who had him arrested, on "vehement suspicion of heresy" IIRC, didn't see it that way.
So, he wasn't tortured or killed, he was just threatened with torture and death. And, ultimately, kept under house arrest for the rest of his life for it.
Seriously, you need to do some research. I'd read all this stuff years ago, and checking up on Wikipedia confirmed most of it. Unless you actually knew it already, and you're deliberately trying to spin-doctor one of the biggest PR catastrophes the RCC has ever brought on itself (and that's really saying something).
So, yes, it *is* something that needs to be apologized for, and frankly, a statue doesn't cut it.
It's even funnier than that. And in fact, so funny, that I propose to have Galileo sanctified as patron saint of nerds and OS zealots.
;)
Well, as you correctly note: the Pope was actually a friend of Galileo's originally and was actually a pretty open minded guy. He actually listened to Galileo, and although he wasn't convinced about this radical departure from all existing science, actually encouraged him to write about it. All the pope did ask for, was that Galileo presents both points of view fairly -- his _and_ the Aristotelian one -- and, basically, explains exactly what his own system explains better than the old one. Which is IMHO very much in line even with the modern scientific method.
Galileo, however, reacted like your average run-of-the-mill self-righteous nerd. He was incensed that the pope didn't immediately see that he's right. The book he wrote, yes, presented both points of view. However the old system was distorted and ridiculed. But the real faux pas was: he distorted the Pope's words and put them in the mouth of a character called Simplicius. I.e., pretty much "The Stupid". This character was furthermore portrayed as, basically, a stupid simpleton who couldn't grasp even elementary logic, and got repeatedly caught up in his own errors. That was the defender of the Aristotelian view in Galileo's book. (Which incidentally also presented the Pope as the zealot of a dogma where he was actually very much neutral.)
In a nutshell, Galileo thoroughly flamed the Pope. In public. In some of the most annoying ways possible. If someone did that on Slashdot, he'd end up at -5 Flamebait in 5 minutes flat.
What followed, well, basically had nothing to do with science-vs-religion. It's at most a case of why totalitarian power is bad. The Pope was an absolute monarch in Rome, and Galileo flamed him on his own turf. People ended up with their head on a spike for _much_ lesser offenses towards secular kings just as well. By contrast, Galileo ended up only with house arrest.
The accusation of heresy was mostly just a heavy-handed abuse of the law, to make it fall under the Pope's own tribunals' jurisdiction. (Things which weren't of a religious nature, otherwise fell under the jurisdiction of the secular authorities.) But make no mistake, it wasn't about science _or_ heresy. It was simply that the Pope didn't take lightly to heavy-handed public ridicule.
And if I'm to be a supporter of science in the whole science-vs-religion circus, I'd actually say the opposite: Galileo there actually did science a disservice. He created a conflict with the church where one hadn't existed before. The pope (and popes) before couldn't care less what rotates around what. The pope only became opposed to heliocentrism all of a sudden, so he could prosecute Galileo for the thorough public flaming. The whole incident _created_ an official position and a precedent, where one didn't have to exist, and turned the church from a potential supporter of the whole thing to an (at least implied) enemy.
So, yeah, I propose Galileo for sanctification. It's about time we too had our patron saint
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The Discovery Institute is not a Young Earth Creationist organization. It doesn't even take a position on common descent as many in the Intelligent Design community believe in common descent. So they aren't even a Creationist organization unless you define that term incredible broadly.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Only religious zealots use the word 'atheist' as a slur. You shouldn't be afraid to embrace it and make it your own. Very few atheists are actually hostile toward religious people — probably the same percentage of religious people who are hostile toward atheists. Most atheists I know (and myself) are very tolerant of other people's religions — we just don't want their religions forced on us.
I managed to find a translation -- the BBC pointed me in the right direction when the news story broke. The translation is pretty difficult reading, because it's full of flowery language and doesn't come right out and give you convenient bullet points. However, here were my take-aways from my reading of this document:
Of course, every time Pope Benedict opens his mouth to insert his foot, the Vatican handlers around him are certain to claim that his remarks were taken out of context. It's really hard to see how they can claim that with a straight face this time. I'm willing to acknowledge that the translations available are not perfect, but I can't believe they'd be so bad as to say the opposite of what the source material appears to be saying.
John Paul II is a tough act to follow.
Um, Galileo has been vindicated many times over. It's the retards in the vatican with their fairy tales that are trying to rehabilitate themselves by associating themselves with a premier scientist. Now if they would stop fighting good science in public debates, maybe they could finish their own rehabilitation.
Currently hooked on AMP
Spot on, but seeing how the GP's limited reading comprehension already prevented him from comprehending that point from the post he responded to, I doubt he'll get it from yours.
It's also funny that he's currently scored as -1: Insightful
Robertson is a scumbag, no doubt.
I just doubt they had cargo plane loads of diamonds to move. That's a lot of diamonds.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
All good Marxists might be atheists but not all atheists are Marxists. That which advances Marxism does not generally advance atheism.
As you yourself state Marxism might be a principle reason for resistance to atheism.
Marxists no more advance atheism then then the Westborough Baptist Church (God Hates Fags) advances Christianity in general. In both cases they simply claim common beliefs. In both cases at least a good number of members of the broader group wish the nut jobs would just shut up and go away forever. Yes I'm looking at you 'Rage Against the Machine'. STFU, go away and study some history.
Maybe we could look them all in a room together and pay per view it. Call it 'God Hates Rage Against the Machine' celebrity death match.
My money is on the 'Rage' people, but they will take their lumps. I guess it all depends on how big a mosh pit you let the ragers bring with them vs. how many guns the 'god hates fags' people bring.
No matter who wins the fight we all win.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Old joke but still funny.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact-fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, creationist version, FTE 4996-4997, pp. 2-14, 2-15)
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact-fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, intelligent design version, FTE 4667, p. 2-15)
1989 Of Pandas and People was published, printed by "Haughton Publishing Co." (Horticultural Printers, Inc. of Dallas, with no other books in print).[9] It included all of the basic arguments of intelligent design in essentially modern form (except for Behe's irreducible complexity argument which appeared in the 1993 edition).[27][18] In 2004, Jon Buell of the FTE stated this was "the first place where the phrase 'intelligent design' appeared in its present use."
You can't take the sky from me...
Actually, Galileo was not imprisoned, he was placed under house arrest, and as far as I can tell, it was more like parole than a strict arrest. Probably the harsher part of his sentence was being required to make a public retraction of his views and banning his book.
And I've read a different account of the conflict: The book was published with Pope Urban VIII's approval, which is subtly different from an imprimatur, under the condition that it remain an academic discussion and not directly advocate heliocentrism. Urban VIII was interested in Galileo's ideas, but cautious about the social implications. Being stubborn, he basically ignored that condition because he knew he was right. Unfortunately, the book used some quotes from the Pope mockingly in the form of a "devil's advocate" sort of character, which became a point of public embarrassment for the pope.
HOWEVER, that right there was not the real issue. The pope himself did not pass the judgement on him. It was the board of inquisitors, who were emboldened and enabled by Galileo's fall from favor. The real root of the issue was also not that Galileo contradicted Church teaching, although that was the argument used by some of the Church leadership to suppress him.
The real issue was that Galileo was outright contradicting what almost everyone "knew" from experience to be true: The sun revolves around the earth. You didn't need an awkwardly worded Bible passage to make you think that. You could look outside and see that this was the case. They'd understood it that way their entire lives, and now this rich prick was trying to tell them that their entire view of the universe was wrong, because he went to school in Rome and had some fancy toy called a telescope! As you should be able to imagine, the knee-jerk reaction to that was much more severe than that created by claiming Vista is better than Debian on Slashdot.
That was how they saw it at least. Sure, there were people who knew better and were on Galileo's side. For example, Kepler showed the planets followed elliptical heliocentric orbits about 20 years before Galileo published his book (gasp! Not only was the earth not the center, but the orbits were a theologically imperfect shape. Heresy!). Yet he mostly escaped the controversy Galileo faced.
In fact, the issue had been gradually boiling up for about 100 years, since Copernicus first layed out strong evidence for heliocentrism. Galileo happened to be adamant enough about it to get caught in the crosshairs of the debate. The actions of the Church, then, followed the broad misunderstanding of society.
Galileo's opposition wasn't even just close-minded churchmen or uneducated peasants. There were plenty of well-educated persons who didn't believe him. Remember, we call geo-centrism the Ptolemic system because Ptolemy laid it out. We don't teach about Ptolemy schools because he was a moron we can laugh at; we do it because he was one of the brightest minds of his time. More contemporarily, Da Vinci, although he expressed some concerns about its imperfections, also appears to have accepted Ptolemy's geocentrism.
This has happened time and time again throughout history, although with varying societal responses: Roundness of the earth, Columbus and the new world (actually, Columbus was wrong and others were right, but he got lucky and found another continent), atomic theory of matter, Einstein's theories of relativity (quote from my great grandfather "Einstein is just another crackpot"), global warming, Coke vs Pepsi, etc.
And yet, everytime this topic comes up, dozens of slashdotters jump on the attack, pointing out the Church's error 300+ years after it stopped mattering.
In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds that the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine that the Earth moves and the Sun doesn't was "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture." The same decree also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.
You can't take the sky from me...
Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo, June 22, 1633 (translated from the Latin), in Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo, University of Chicago Press, 1955, pp. 306-10.
You can't take the sky from me...
Ummm...I don't know what sort of translation you read, but that's not what he said. The paper wasn't even specifically about Galileo. It was about the Church in the modern world. Galileo was a logical anecdote. Read excerpts here:
http://ncrcafe.org/node/1541
What he did was to quote a variety of opinions on Galileo that others had offered. Some had supported the church's treatment of Galileo, a viewpoint which Cardinal Ratzinger called "drastic."
However, that's not even the entire story, because if you study the matter more, you will discover that although Galileo was correct about heliocentrism (which others thought of and supported before he was even born), it was for the wrong reasons, and the evidence he offered as proof was fallacious.
The comments on relativity in reference to other quotes, and relativity changes nothing about Galileo's case. What he does say is that from the human perspective, the earth is the center of the universe. Less philosophically that could be translated as "the earth is what matters most to us."
I'm not sure where the phrase "undue rationalism" comes in. I guess I can suggest that maybe this was another compare and contrast historical quote, or that the phrase was "undue rationalization" as in trying to excuse something unjustifiably. Given the Catholic teaching, and even Benedict's own statements about the necessity of exercising the human faculty of reason, it wouldn't make any sense for him to turn 180 degrees and saying you should try to be rational.
Ratzinger goes so far as to invoke Relativity to claim that heliocentrism and geocentrism are (paraphrasing) "effectively equal," and that heliocentrism is merely a mathematical convenience.
...
Actually, it is fairly standard in scientific and engineering circles to point out that this is in fact correct. Of course, if your model has the Earth stationary at the (0,0,0) point, your math becomes increasing more difficult as you attempt to model the behavior of objects at greater distances. Even the nearest start are orbiting the Earth at velocities much greater than the speed of light. And the orbital equations are effectively unique for every object in the universe.
However, if you're modeling the part of the Earth in which (for example) the airlines operate, the geocentric model is quite effective. It allows you to ignore forces like the Coriolis effect, and the gravitational pulls of the moon and sun, which are inconsequential in flight calculations. You even ignore the Earth's rotation, and consider the sun to be in orbit around the Earth, because this greatly simplifies your equations.
Part of such an approach is recognizing that you're not really dealing with "the Truth" in any philosophical sense. Rather, you are dealing with the equations, and including in your model only the motions and forces that are required to explain the parts of the system that you're dealing with.
Similarly, in scientific study of the molecular mechanics of our bodies (medicine), the orbits of the earth, moon, etc. are rarely if ever mentioned. Their effects are unmeasurable at the molecular level, so there's no point in taking them into account.
Everyone knows about the structure of the solar system, of course, and they also mostly know quite a bit about the structure of the galaxy. But whether they're part of your equations depends strongly on just what your equations are modeling.
Now if we could only get the religious folks to realize that molecular, aviational, and celestial mechanics really aren't very relevant to moral and ethical calculations
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
The vatican is one of the biggest shitholes of power hungry politicians on earth, who, through the power of blind faith control billions of people around the world (the same goes for other religions that demand blind faith). Who cares what these medieval dictators think of Galileo? He was a scientist to the core - as far removed from this bogus "religion" as can be.
It's funny, no one ever mentions that many of these early scientists like Galileo were
1) Religious
2) Did it to prove God existed.
Yet people are interested in mentioning the other side.
-Aegis Runestone-
At some point in the future, we can hope that this will occur while a thinker is still alive. It's not right that Galileo was persecuted throughout his life and only honored for his work posthumously. But I guess it's a start.
... it is not even funny.
....
For starters, the Pope is elected.
And check for councils through history.
Honestly, stop giving opinions about things you know nothing about, even laterally
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I'm still a bit dubious of the translation you provide the link for, though, because it's published by the National Catholic Reporter... but as I am having trouble digging up the translation I used, we can talk about your preferred translation instead.
You know, this claim was made in several other discussion threads about this article, but it's worth noting that only some of Galileo's evidence was fallacious -- specifically, his evidence relating to tides. The phases of Venus and the four Galilean satellites of Jupiter are certainly not fallacious evidence for heliocentrism. (The moons of Jupiter don't directly prove that the Sun is the center of anything -- they only serve to show that not all bodies revolve around the Earth.) So yes, his evidence was weak, and some of it didn't mean what he claimed it did. But he also made legitimate contributions, and I don't just mean (re)introducing the Western world to the idea of heliocentrism, so let's not dismiss those, eh?
No need to be condescending by inviting me to "study the matter more." I took a semester of astronomy and have a BS in Physics, so I know the basic facts.
While I agree that Relativity changes nothing about Galileo's case, I disagree that the comments on Relativity were irrelevant to the discussion of Galileo, as you imply by saying they were in reference to other quotes. Let's be specific here. Ratzinger discusses Ernst Bloch in the context of heliocentrism vs. geocentrism, and that bears on our historical perspective of Galileo. Ratzinger states that Relativity forbids a privileged frame of reference (in a very roundabout fashion), and this is a true statement in itself; but he then uses this fact along with Bloch's arguments to minimize the true value of heliocentrism, relegating the notion to a mere computational convenience, and uses this as a justification (in part) of the view that the Galileo case was blown into a "myth of the Enlightenment."
Frankly, it is of no concern to me what point Ratzinger may be making about religion making humans the "moral center" of the universe, or some other such anthropocentric nonsense. (Incidentally, he wasn't really saying "the earth is what matters most to us," as you put it, but rather, it is the human condition that matters most to us... it isn't the place so much but the people who inhabit it, because that's what religion is about -- the relationship between people and the Divine.)
First off, no, it wasn't (to the best of my recollection) a compare-and-contrast historical quote, and I know for a fact I was not misreading the phrase "undue rationalization" because I never confuse "rationalism" with "rationalization." (My brain's parser has other failure modes, but that's not one of them.) Since the translation offered by the NCR doesn't contain this phrase at all, there's no more I can say except that I'm still digging around.
As f
I was mostly agreeing with what you said until you said that flight calculations can omit things like the Coriolis effect and the Earth's rotation; in point of fact, both of these play a major role in calculating trajectories for long distance flights. For example, check out this page, which has some great animations of the Coriolis effect, along with this quote (that directly contradicts you): "In reality, pilots take the Coriolis effect into account so they do not miss their targets."
Rarely? Try never. The notion that tidal forces somehow affect our bodies internally has been largely discredited, and while it's true that some organisms respond to lunar cycles, this has more to do with cycles of luminosity and responses to ocean tides going on around them.
:-) Case in point:
Your point is well taken, but... erm... it's kind of stating the obvious to anyone with a background in the physical sciences. And I have a background in the physical sciences, incidentally.
Thank you, Captain Obvious! Yes, we do this all the time to reduce the number of free variables we have to consider in any mathematical model. You don't throw stuff in your model that will only have a miniscule or immeasureable effect. (The trick comes in trying to figure out what things can truly be ignored and what things can't. Sometimes, that isn't so obvious.)
As for philosophical "Truth," I believe that is what science and religion are both seeking, ultimately... but they do it in their own, very different ways. (I won't say "equally valid," because that's a whole other kettle of fish, and I personally don't think the two approaches are equally valid, not even for the domains in which they are meant to be applied.) I think, though, scientists don't get as hung up on philosophy because they're more focused on empirical evidence than on being in love with ideas for their own sake and spinning complex notions that have zero grounding in concrete reality. Maybe that's because most of the physical sciences focus on a philosophically materialist world view, but it happens to be a very useful viewpoint to have if you're in the business of doing science.
Personally, I find it absurd to state with a straight face that heliocentrism and geocentrism are totally equivalent and that heliocentrism is "merely" a computational convenience, for many of the reasons you yourself mention. This is where starry-eyed philosophers get a smack-down from reality, and where I have to tip my hat to another philosopher... if you're going to invoke philosophy, then I have to invoke Occam's Razor, and point out that the real win of heliocentrism (and follow-on theories that mark the advent of modern physics) isn't the convenience of being able to do orbital calculations simply! No, the real win is having a single set of rational, co
Why can't this particular thing - a good thing - get a compliment on its own? It neither excuses nor condemns any other church behavior. I wasn't making a statement about the Church being good or bad in a BIG GIANT sense. I was saying, "hey, good job on this one, Church."
Sad that everyone with their own personal hobby horse has to ride in a have it crap all over everything else regardless of the topic.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln