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."
while galileo was only imprissoned and threatend with torture, giordano bruno was murdered by the chruch...
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."
I'm fine with the Church being a dictatorship as long as it only affects their followers. I've got a problem when they support a militar dictator that oppresses a whole country, though.
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.
Maybe not, but what are they supposed to do? Publicly admit their Holy Men to be as sin-full as everybody else, sometimes even more so?
That would have a pretty high chance of causing/accelerating their downfall, and such an organization of course has some interest in selfpreservation.
I'm not convinced their downfall is a good thing either, as I prefer Christianity/Catholisim over Islamism as the leading world religion. A lot.
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
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
You're fine with the church killing people who change their minds and don't want to be followers any more ?
Because that's one of the things that dictators do. Including the Roman Catholic Church who burned people at the stake for heresy.
Actually, there still is quite a bit of this too. And the Discovery Institute is a case in point. Most of its members are scientists with Ph.D.s who teach in universities. Guillermo Gonzalez was a professor of Astronomy at my alma mater, Iowa State University. You can't just dismiss them and say there is no controversy in the scientific community, when they teach and research science for a living, and hold the same degrees and positions as other academics. To say there is no controversy is to define the scientific community as only those scientists that believe in Evolution, and while many people clearly do try to do just that, such an approach smacks of arrogance, and doesn't make a lot of sense, because again, save this one area of disagreement, these people are indistinguishable from other scientists.
Side note: There are other scientists who take issue with evolution as well, but aren't in the Discovery Institute because they know that is the kiss of death to anyone seeking tenure.
Other note: I have said nothing about my personal views, so don't start making assumptions and arguing the merits of evolution with me. I confine my post entirely to the point that saying there is no controversy in the scientific community is ridiculous.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
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
The Galileo incident had nothing to do w/ evolution, but you are correct that evolution is not inconsistent w/ Church teaching. Many people misunderstand the real issue behind the problem the church had w/ Galileo. It had nothing to do w/ the basic contention that the earth revolved about the sun. Copernius (a Catholic priest) proposed heliocentricity about a 100 years before the Galileo incident. The concept was generally accepted by most educated people (including members of the Church hierarchy) at the time. Galileo strayed from purely scientific examinations to drawing *religious* conclusions based on the contradiction between scripture and scientific fact. The Vatican had asked him to refrain from drawing religious conclusions (the responsibility of the Church) and stick to scientific fact. Galileo agreed, but later fell back to the religious aspects. The Church's position was that it required time to resolve the apparent conflict b/w scripture and science. This is one reason why the Catholic Church does not promote *literal* belief in the bible. The bible's inerrent truth applies to spiritual matters only, not scientific or historical facts. A description of the sun and the rest of the universe revolving around the earth does not detract from the spiritual truth that each human soul is known individually to a loving and caring God.
Considering that at the time people were tortured and burned for doing much less, being held in his own house was a very soft punishment. The Church really wasn't harsh on him. It's only by comparing what Galileo was subjected to with 20th century style freedom of speech that one finds it "evil". But comparing it to what was the standard practices in the 17th century puts things in a very different light.
Evil is as evil does. Just because it was acceptable treatment back then doesn't mean it was ok. Today it seems to be acceptable to have people assaulted, robbed, kidnapped and held for years just because they possess a little cannabis. In 400 years I'm sure it will be seen as barbaric, and it is. Galileo's treatment was no less barbaric.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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. --
But this is part of the problem with debating Creationists. They set up the argument not for the sake of rational, logical discussion. Rather, they set up the arguments in a "zinger" format. Cheap shots and short, nice-sounding answers win the day, while complex explanations of the subject matter get drowned out in about two sentences. It is really the intellectual equivalent of flinging dung. They are simply interested in "winning" the argument rather than discussing the issues. You can't win against someone whose sole debate tactic is to fling dung at you. You only wind up with shit all over you.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
> What is the hypothesis that is proposed as the serious scientific alternative to evolution?
Why, there isn't one. They simply want to create doubt about the established theories, with nothing but vague illusions to "design" that must naturally include a designer. Or perhaps they're all really Zen Buddhists, who just pose koans to us to create that Great Doubt that when broken, brings us to a state of Satori.
Greg Bear had an interesting take on the idea in Darwin's Radio, suggesting that perhaps there is some intelligent design going on, but that the design itself is an evolved mechanism. The eventual expression of the design "toolkit" that surfaces in humanity in is of course waaaay Out There sci-fi stuff in the books, but there's a nugget of truth to it. The stimuli might be random, but it appears that evolution has a trick or two in directing itself. No outside designer needed.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
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.
It's a myth that Galileo was prosecuted because of his (Really Copernicas') helocentric theory. He was prosecuted because he made fun of the Pope in a book. This shows why you don't mix religion and politics but using it as a case where the Vatican and science are at odds is strange to me. The church held to the view the earth was the center because the math models (very complicated) used to explain it could accuratly predict the location of the planets. Galileo was closer to being correct but even he said the sun was at the center of the universe which we today know isn't correct. Also he said the planets were in circular orbits but when you do the calculations that way they don't do a better job predicting where the planets will be then the geocentric model. Now that we know the answer it is easy to look back and say how stupid they are. But if you have one model that gives better results then another why would you say the least accurate one is better. Also notice that when Kepler came along and figured out that there really were eliptical orbits the model was actually more accurate and simpler then what they had before. Galileo thought that eliptical orbits were wrong because they "had" to be perfect circles. So as always nothing is exactly as it seems.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.