Slashdot Mirror
Galileo's Daughter
Albert Einstein considered Galileo Galilei to be "the father of modern physics - indeed of modern science altogether."
In a sense, the obsessive, rebellious and gadget-minded Galileo (1564-1642) was one of the first Geeks, and in the context in which he lived and worked, one of the bravest.
He was brilliant, humble and funny, qualities rarely seen in contemporary geeks and nerds, or anybody much. He was profoundly grateful to be able to use science to seek out the truth. In 1609, he set up a telescope in the garden behind his house, pointed it skyward, and saw never-before-seen stars and constellations.
"I render infinite thanks to God for being so kind as to make me alone the first observer of marvels kept hidden in obscurity for all previous centuries. "
It was gracious of Galileo to offer thanks, since he himself received precious few acknowledgements in his lifetime. He sent his out-of-wedlock daughter off to a convent when she was 12 and never saw her again, then ran afoul of the Catholic Church and the Inquisition for his heretic notion that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.
Yet, while he never set foot outside his native Italy, his discoveries rocked the world. His most remarkable invention, the telescope, enabled him to alter the conventional reality of the civilized world and to reinforce the then - stunning argument that the Earth moves around the sun. In a sense, he hacked the universe, attacking and solving the biggest problem in both science and theology. For this, he was hauled before the Holy Office of the Inquisition, accused of heresy, and forced to spend the final years of his life under house arrest.
Of his three illegitimate children, the oldest, (born Virginia in 1600, but re-named Suor Maria Celeste after she took vows of poverty and retreated permanently from the world, since illegitimate daughters were considered unfit for marriage) shared Galileo's brilliance and love of science.
She became his most determined supporter and prolific-letter-writing confidante, though he never saw her again. Her letters and life (his to her at the convent were destroyed once he was targeted by the Inquisition).
Dava Sobel's "Galileo's Daughter: A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith and Love," by (Walker, US $27) expands the story of Galileo, his amazing accomplishments, adding his heart-breaking relationship with his daughter. It's a stunning book, beautiful and powerful, and it brings us back to the Florence of the Medicis and the papal court during an era when humanity's very perceptions of its place in the universe was being upended by one brave man.
In our time, Galileo would probably have ended up a zillionnaire, profiled on "Dateline" and shifting his stock-option wealth from one fund to another. In his own, he was tried and found guilty of heresy, "ordered in the name of His Holiness the Pope and whole body of the Holy Office to the effect that the said opinion that the Sun is the center of universe and the Earth moves must be entirely abandoned, nor might he from then on in any way hold, teach, or defend it by world or in writing; otherwise the Holy Office would proceed against him," which would have meant torture and death.
As the foreword to the book itself explains, this isn't a mawkish contemporary family story.
"Theirs is not a tale of abuse or rejection or intentional stifling of abilities. Rather, it is a love story, a tragedy and a mystery."
People who love science, technology and exploration will be knocked out by this volume, with its wealth of illustrations and gorgeous design. So will people who simply love a great and brilliantly-rendered story.
Pick this book up at Amazon.
Add to it the sociological fact that, as an illegimate, her place outside the convent was one of social ostricism(sp) and public contempt, Mr G starts looking like a prudent, and caring, father.
Your own hostility toward the Church is not relevent to the events.
Her previous book "Longitude" documents the quest for a reliable ship-board clock for accurate east-west positioning. She seems to have an attraction for oddball characters.
--Louis
The phases of Venus are inconsistent with the Ptolemaic model, and the telescope is critical to seeing them. In the Copernican model there is a much greater range possible.
Let me state, from the very beginning, that I respect Kepler, Copernicus, Gallileo Gallilei and Isaac Newton as some of the most important scientists of all times. But most people do not know, for example, that the Greek astronomer Aristarchos of Samos was the first one to come up with the Heliocentric Theory (not a theory really since it was supported by astronomical evidence). The above is just one example. How many of you know that the Atom Theory is also a Greek achievement? How many of you know the physical philosopher Demokritos of Abdhera? Sure Demokritos was just guessing (unlike Aristarchos he couldn't have known), and sure other Greeks of antiquity made wrong guessings (Aristotle: the world is compossed of five elements: fire, water, dust, air and aether), but unlike others had the intellect to guess! And I can bring forth numerous other examples....
Brecht's Virginia was a rhetorical device. In fact, Galileo had two daughters, both of whom entered a convent at ages 14-15.
Yeah, they were all from the same woman named Marina Gamba. He would have married her, but his father had died and he had sisters who he was then responsible to provide dowries for, and he had to support his mother and his younger brother, and Galileo didn't earn much from his teaching position. He was too poor to marry her.
is this new?
There is nothing in the history of Mankind that has cause more misery than the "Catholic" church. Catholisism Christianity I fully expect this to get moderated out of existence.
All I see is a lot of gushing over Galileo but hardly any mention of the book itself. Is this book historical fiction or actual memoirs?
Dude, do you imagine that /. is not censored?
Just try a serious article which includes the see-you-en-tee word.
-Aldebaran
> Neither does Jesus-Free religion. :)
You forget that not all religions involve Jesus. However, we can draw this comparison further...
If...
- Christianity = beer
- Judaism = Stoli on the rocks - more buzz in a smaller package!
- Judaism as of year 100 BC = Everclear (try animal sacrifice
:-) - Islam = cocaine (shit, I'm gonna get slammed for this!)
- Militant Islam = crack (what's that ticking sound under my chair?)
- Rastafarianism = here man smoke this... it's good shit!
Or, as Marx said - religion is opium for the masses. I'm not saying we can't indulge in a little opium - but too much of any of that stuff can render us drooling idiots or raving lunatics - which is a very un-geek thing to do!Then...
>while Religion seeks the Truth that includes and, yet, goes beyond that which science can discern No, religion DICTATES what it expects us to swallow as "truth". >It would be interesting to know how many of the great events in history truly happened the way we were taught in textbooks. How often have we received history and how often have we received propaganda? The same goes for the bible, which was made by the Catholic church. They "edited" the dead sea scrolls and the old testament to fit the power structure they were seeking to make. Honestly, a reilgion which caused over a thousand years of dark ages has no right to get indignant about anything.
While God may not allow conclusions to be based (i>only on that which can be observed with the (traditional five) senses as a matter of faith, science only allows those sorts of conclusions.
Thus, there is nothing illogical about the scientific method, nor is there anything specifically illogical in certain belief systems.
This is why Lewis is such a refreshing author to read (even for a non-religious person such as myself)... Lewis uses the most logical arguments... In the screwtape letters, he presents issues in terms of the goals of Satan and satan's tempters. In doing so, much illogic is shed from the picture of cristianity that is painted. To be honest, the book enabled me to think far more critically about christianity than I had before, and in particular to think deeply about what it means to be a decent person in general (my goal, as a nonreligious person).
I think that someone should write a more detailed review of The Screwtape Letters for /., I know I would gladly do so.
The term 'Geek' ,to Katz, has become so broad, that he will slap the word on any possible historical or modern-day martyr in the name of 'geekness'. I'm sure if he hasn't done it already, the "Jesus was a Geek" essay is on it's way. Please please please shut up Katz. We got the point the first time around -- it's just becoming so blurred and confusing now that we're starting to realize you got lucky with the Columbine essays, as everything following that has been fanatical garbage.
This was fairly common at the time, actually. On a Fresh Air interview last month, a music researcher said that as much as 20% or so of the female population of one Italian city was in convents. In Galileo's particular case, since his children were illigitimate, there was very little likelihood that his daughters would be accepted into society and that the convent was the best place for them. That doesn't make it any nicer, but it's not like he was unusual in this, and it shows the societal factors that were involved.
And who says they were observing from 6 feet above sea level, not the top of a cliff/hill/lighthouse?
Have you read about Galileo? He was a tireless self-promoter. He wasn't one for languishing in the lab, he was always trying to get influence in the court, get more money for his research, etc. When he heard about the invention of the telescope, he pulled strings so that he could get an improved version presented before the Doge (and get a patent) instead of the Flemish merchants who were bringing their telescopes to Venice. Galileo knew the value of a buck and wasn't immune to jockeying his horse to the front of the pack to get one.
C.S. Lewis is a charlatin and his writings are nothing more than a poor exercise at apology. Lewis's writings are nothing more than feeble attempt to rationalize why god doesn't exist.
He didn't miss much.
This post makes me want to advocate negative Scores...Anyone agree?
everyone thinks their brilliant and humble and got a great sense of humor. Ya could check it out
Can't Katz give us a decent book review without all this editorial bullshit about `Geeks' and the such?
Katz is trying so hard to be a geek and fit in with the `geek community' that he comes off as a twink.
This type of word-wacking is the same type of garbage we've seen with other 90's pseduo-intellectuals such as Hillary "I'm for the children!!" Clinton.
Thankfully, most of us can see past it.
I am under the impression that much of what we know about Greek mathematics and philosophy has survived only because it was preserved by the Arabs, and that it disappeared in Europe for centuries because it didn't conform to the official church beliefs. Isn't that why the dark ages are called the dark ages?
Actually, he didn't discover by experiment that objects of different weight fall at the same rate. He found out by sheer logic. I'm not saying that his famous experiment with the cannonballs and the leaning tower of Pisa are myths, he might well have had to perform that experiment to someone who was immune to logic. His proof went something like this: let us imagine two balls, A and B. A weighs X and the B weighs 2X. Now, Aristotelian physics say that B must fall faster than A. Let us for a moment say that Aristotle was right. Then let us connect A and B with a very light yet very strong chain, and then let them fall simultaneously from a great height. What will happen? Why, B will of course drag A down with it, won't it? For B falls faster ... But then we have another problem. When that chain between A and B is so tightly strung, it will seem that A and B are indeed the same object, so it will fall at the rate of an object the weight of X+2X, won't it? Sounds funny ... perhaps Aristotle wasn't right after all! Weird, people have been talking about this for almost 2000 years, yet no one has pointed this simple thing out?
Man, these brilliant guys really get around!
Not all of them do; legend has it that Sir Isaac Newton died a virgin.
Sigh. This is so sad. I hope the open source movement with all it's free software doesn't lead developers to commit the same mistake. We have to be responsible and make a decent living. We can only afford to give when we have a surplus.
To say that Galileo's claims weren't science because he had no proof disqualifies almost everything we think of as science from actually being science. As just one example, physicists generally accepted Einstein's theory of general relativity before there was really convincing proof that it was correct.
Even more absurd is the argument that anything that isn't dogma isn't religion. I never heard of Native American or Druid dogmas. Do you suggest that those cultures didn't have religions?
(Humor) Oh, I thought this was a metaphor for the coming of the Capernican revolution?
You had to mention Carl Sagan. I understand he had an illegitimate child, too. And, let's not forget he smoked pot!
Before I get attacked as an anti Catholic bigot, let me observe that I was even more shocked a couple years later, when I was given literature opposing Kennedy for religious reasons by protestants on my paper route during the 1960 Presidential election. Some of it actually discussed the possibility of a tunnel from the White House to the Vatican. Ignorance truly comes in all flavors.
I'm glad he was virginous. My God, if only the rest of the world obeyed the ten commandments, the world would be a much better place.
I saw the monument to Galileo in the church (I think it was the Chiesa Santa Maria della Grazia, but I could be wrong--definitely Florence, though). It was quite impressive, as he actually looks sort of like Zeus or something with the robes. He's holding a globe in one hand, and there are telescopes and other assorted scientific instruments scattered around. The same church also has the bodies of Fermi, Marconi, Dante, and other prominent Italians. Ciao.
Einstein (Albert) had a daughter who was so retarded that she died. I would post a link here but never fear - it will have it's own little article.
ANNOUNCEMENT : Any slight deviation of topic will be deemed 'thought crime'. You will be penalised accordingly. Good day, citizens.
"beer without alcohol: it may taste good, but in the end you don't get a buzz."
Alcohol free beer does not taste good.
Other than that, I agree.
Sounds like a good book.
codemonkey_uk
Galileo was never charged by any church court with heresy, much less `tried and found guilty' of it. Many of the pundits and scientists of his day *called* him a heretic, but no ecclesiastical authority did. The church accused him of violating a direct order, but dropped the charge when Galileo proved it false. Afterwords, he plead guilty to `arrogance' and was convicted. I certainly agree with Einstein that Galileo was the father of modern physics. His dynamics were the first theories worthy of the word, and his principle of relativity was the prequel to Einstein's theory. But I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Galileo a geek. His predecessor, Kepler, was geek-like, as was his long-time nemesis, the bespectacled and stammering Horrace Grassi, whom he delighted in ridiculing in public. (Grassi first proved that comets were extraterrestrial and not atmospheric as Galileo believed.) But Galileo himself was something of a socialite and playboy.
I read through all of the comments wondering what was going on. I have had a class on Galileo, and even had manuscripts of this book at the time. Galileo should probably not be known as a great inventor. However, he should e known as the first real experimentor. Basically, he invented the scientific method and really defined using experiments instead of just ideas. For that we should be grateful. He was very political. If you wernt, you were ignored. In order to get a book out you needed MONEY, and lots of it, especially for pictures. And try defending arguments about the heavens without pictures. The main problem with Galileos work was the timing. The printing of the Bible allowed common people to read the Bible and interpret it, one of the reasons for the rotestant movement. The Church then had a big crackdown and declared noone except the bigwigs could interpret stuff. Galileo called for a new interpretation of the bible, which would explain how heliocentrism fit with the Bible. The bigwigs did not like this and got pretty upset.
Yes, I noticed that at the local GLB and Vegetarian organizations at our University. Apparently there are lists circulating around listing tons of famous people who were gay/bi (in the GLB organization) or Vegetarian/Vegan (in the Veggie organization). Every marginalized group wants to claim the famous people of history as "their" own: the subtext is that "they" are superior.
Ironically, the most famous achievers of history are often the ones who were best at taking credit for other people's accomplishments. Edison is one good example. Then there's Newton, who was clearly not an inept mathematician but who probably stole Calculus - a very significant and powerful invention - from Leibniz.
Funny... I never see Leibniz, or Tesla, on lists of famous people who were (insert marginalized group here). What does that say about the people who circulate such lists...?
The only valid hypothesis is the one based on a good day, or lifetime, or several lifetimes, of hacking. Similarly, any hypothesis formed without hacking is just more popish-bull, entropy and indulgence. Witness, Microsoft.
I believe he's 'interned' at the cathedral in Florence. Personally, I'd rather father my own children, but if they find out where the daughter was buried...
Kevin Fox
Damn it Katz, how long is it going to take you to ditch whatever POS Word (TM) processor you use?
I'm sick and tired of these question marks that pop up everywhere in your articles.
Surely you mean 'interred' - if the guy really is still interned, isn't time they let him out now? ;)
One letter difference between the two most intelligent societies the world has ever seen. Coincidence?
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
You can spin it any way you like but sending your daughter off to a convent at any age in any time for whatever reason is a pretty shoddy thing to do.
I don't know this book, but I know Dava Sobel's previous book, Longitude, is a great story well written and worth a read if you haven't already. An excellent popular science writer who's books I would buy before opening the cover.
In a sense, the obsessive, rebellious and gadget-minded Galileo (1564-1642) was one of the first Geeks...
/. Most of us are aware that there's more to the world than geek stuff, and plenty of us are interested in general science and science history. Stop trying to shoehorn everything into some uber-Geek category. It is very annoying, and detracts mightily from whatever it is you're trying to say.
Must Katz relate everything and everyone in the universe to Geekdom? ARRGGGHHH!!!
Mr. Katz, please listen carefully: not everything you write must have something to do with geeks. Not even the stuff you write for
ANNOUNCEMENT : Any slight deviation for topic will be deemed 'thought crime'. You will be penalised accordingly. Good day, citizens.
Amen!
For the Catholic (both from the Vatican and from others) view on science and religion, see http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~newma n/sci-faith.html. Contrary to popular belief, the Church is not full of Luddites.
--
Humble is an inappropriate description. Galileo was a courtier and a favorite of the Medici family. He named the moons of Jupiter that he found for them.
Check out a good website on Galileo.
The Galileo Project
Religion without Jesus is like beer without alcohol: it may taste good, but in the end you don't get a buzz.
Interesting analogy. At the risk of extrapolating it too far, look at the converse effects of drinking 100% pure alcohol:
It is a rather strange form of love though, maybe best described as "tough love". Sometimes, it's not so desirable to be loved by Him. For example when He decides to express His incredible love by letting you die with thirst while lying under the remains of your earthquake-destroyed house with broken bones.
--
I wasn't really complaining (believe it or not). I was just observing. I find it interesting as a sociological phenomenon.
-- Slashdot sucks.
And what about when christians praying in church are shot?
/was/ saying. Namely, he was claiming that the church should reign in "our" wackos. The counter-point is that they are NOT our wackos, and there is no way we can reign them in, anymore than the French socialist party can reign in neo-nazis.
I must say I am shocked and appalled at the lack of coverage surrounding the shootings of 7 children, praying in church. Take a look. Compare it to the coverage given to (for example) Columbine. A crazy man comes into a church, shoots seven children dead and wounds more including an associate pastor, then kills himself, and it didn't even make front page on the newspaper here. No Bill Clinton crying out against the dangers of guns (or even the dangers of anti-christian rhetoric), no senate bills passed, nothing.
If that had happened in a non-christian setting, it would have been widely decried. As it is, the attitude seems to be that "It's dangerous to be a wacko".
I think my example was in point -- and responded to what he
-- Slashdot sucks.
Hmmm... The thing is that the stereo-type is not true in either case. Maybe we should stop listening to the media (think Jon Katz with his sharply slanted articles) and concentrate on those religious people we actually know?
I must admit that Christianity in the US is coming out of a dark age right now. The previous generation seemed to have lost all touch with God and the light nearly died. But that doesn't invalidate it. Read the Bible (start with the Gospel according to John if I may suggest) and judge for yourself.
Maybe the majority in any religion will be at least less than ideal for the same reason that most computer programmers are simply time-clock punchers with little understanding of their jobs -- the majority in any area of human endeavour tends to be incompetent.
Of course, in christianity we have to love them anyway, but that's another article.
-- Slashdot sucks.
What then should we consider the Inquisition to be? I'd say it qualifies as evil, and certainly was created and sanctioned by the Pope.
Ultimately, I'm not disposed to defend catholicism because I don't think that organized religion as such is good.
I do, however, have to say that arguments based on the "evils" of the Inquisition are typically over-wrought. While I think that the idea of the inquisition (and the ideal of "Christendom/the City of God" behind it) are
Blaming the Pope is just not fair. Moreso, it doesn't really answer the posters point. His point was that, while individual popes might be corrupt, the church as a whole was not. Inquisition was an
I think a lot of the problem is that the stories are radically overblown and that most people today don't seems to be able to garner information other than by soundbites and inuendo. Research has become optional.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Alcohol free beer does not taste good.
:)
Neither does Jesus-Free religion.
Maybe I could deal with it if I were drunk enough to not taste the difference?
-- Slashdot sucks.
Bullshit. You were complaining. 'interesting...sociological phenomenon' my ass!
;)
**>>BELCH
Listen man, I understand your gripe about the moderation here, but you have to understand that not only is this mob rule, but you shouldn't be posting for moderation points anyway.
/. is to *trust* people. That may sound naive, but what do you suggest as an alternate strategy? Trust the moderators to be honest, and your posts will be rated accordingly. There are things in life that are more important than a positive karma on slashdot. And generally, the moderators really aren't that bad, in that it's hard to have a negative karma unless you're really just a troll, which you don't seem to be.
Don't post hoping that your post will get moderated up or down. Post if you have something to say, and skip the post if you think it's not really all that important.
It's about judgement - and the best you can do with anybody in such an anonymous forum as
MDA
http://opop.nols.com/
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
>Hmmm... As I recall, Adolf Hitler called himself >a National Socialist. So, I guess the various >Socialist parties in Europe are all anti-semitic?
That's not what he was saying and you know it. Christians ARE often seen as loonies, but most educated people know better than to take the entire lot as similar to the wackos who are on the outside screaming. I don't think this guy was just trying to troll.
I lived in Germany for a year, and they all asked me if I brought guns with me to school or not, if I smoked crack, and so on. That's all they see in the newspaper. The newspaper reports on the out of the ordinary, but when that's all you see, you come to think of it as the ordinary. I think the same is true of christians. You don't see christians praying in church on the news, because that's ordinary. But you do see them shooting abortion providers and so on. When the out-of-the-ordinary becomes the ordinary, people get things confused.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Galileo is a person who for me started what has been a centuries long progression of formalized religion and the church backing up to the progress of science. First it was galileo, and many have come after him, forcing the church to slowly and stubbornly give up ground.
Galileo was persecuted, eventually the church came around and said "oops" - first accepting that there might be some shred of truth to what he had to say, then admitting that maybe he was on to something, and finally agreeing that yes, it was the case that the earth revolves around the sun.
I have heard that Leonardo DiVinci drew considerable heat for his dissection of cadavers, which yielded many insights into anatomy. Surely nobody can dispute the importance of knowledge of anatomy.
Darwin stood up and told the world what he thought, and Creationists didn't believe it, (He was lucky he lived when he did - if he had lived at the time or before galileo I don't think the church would have been as kind to him as they were to galileo) but gradually, the idea of evolution and the underlying sense that it makes has wormed its way into our heads.
Although I'm not sure of exactly when, I've been told that the vatican has recently acknowledged evolution for the first time. (That's 2nd hand though, I'm not sure if that's accurate)
As the church through the centuries is constantly finding itself backing itself into a corner, admitting that more and more of science might have some measure of truth to it, you have to wonder when it will stop or IF it will stop. Not intending to draw flame, but rather as a statement of opinion, I see the church as peddling mythology and comfortable fibs, while science peddles nothing - it offers only the truth or a reasonable method of getting the truth.
I think that the story of Galileo is central to the state of daily consciousness not because of the specific facts that it represented (earth, sun, which revolves around which), but because of the scientific-driven secularism that it seems to have started.
MDA
http://opop.nols.com/
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
has anyone else noticed that anytime a historical figure who contributed any *any* way to the intelectual understanding of the world is mentioned on /. (s)he is labeled as a geek.
there seems to be a huge backlash at the moment where people who felt isolated from society are creating their own society (with the label 'geek') and are trying to grab past achievments and poeple as their own, just in order to prove their society has existed for an appreciable amount of time.
people who are trying to enter this society are constantly attempting to prove tghemselves by grabbing more and more achievments and labelling them under that magical term 'geek'. this seems equivelent to one of the rites of passage in some primitive societies where the young man has to hunt his first wild animal before he is accepted into the tribe.
i dont know, it just seems kind of bizarre the way that parts of geek society seem to be unevolving into a quest for power and acceptance in the same ways as the societies it has superceeded.
just my 2p
but if that's what the majority or any movement degenerates to, then that (in my eyes) IS the movement
This brings up the interesting question of, does the Church (and by this I assume we're speaking of the Roman Catholic Church, which was the organization that persecuted Galileo) truly make up or represent the majority of Christians? Does the Church truly "dominate" public and cultural life?
And if it does include the majority, do the "members" of the RCC actually agree with the "official" beliefs of the Church? (This actually applies to me in particular, being a Christian who is technically a Roman Catholic, yet disagrees with many of the silly proclamations coming out of the Vatican. Which is why I typically refer to myself as Christian rather than Catholic.) It is quite possible that the majority of Christians do not believe the "official" Church dogma. For example, there was a study involving Roman Catholics a while back, and they found that 50% of them were pro-choice, while the other half were anti-abortion. Yet the Church's position has been unequivocally anti-abortion. Makes you wonder in what other areas the membership disagrees with the organized religion's leadership.
Something to keep in mind about organized religion, at least in the RCC, is that the leadership does NOT necessarily represent the 'masses'. It's not a democracy, the membership does not elect the leadership. I can't go to church and vote for who the next pope should be. And often the membership ignores the leadership. So while the Pope and company may say one thing, don't assume that it is representative of the beliefs of the majority of Christians.
Besides, if you look at the history of organized Chrisitanity, it usually has nothing or little to do with the teachings of Jesus. The Crusades were a prime example of this. True Christians, those who actually try to follow the path Jesus set, would not do such a thing, IMHO (and yes, I see a certain irony in stating what things "true Christians" would do, but my point is that Christianity != Church)
ah...comparisons between religion and beer. Being a Christian and being drunk. This is the sort of thing to drive certain Christian fanatics up the wall. Fun :-)
:) I'm just envisioning a certain fanatical Christian girl from back home who was always preaching at everyone, and who I'd send into fits by questioning her (often ridiculous) claims :-) I find making fun of the mindlessly fanatical can be highly entertaining. At least for a while, until you realize that there is no hope of actually getting them to *think* about the beliefs they have. Sigh.
BTW, I'm a Christian, so don't think I'm dissing Jesus or strong beliefs here
And no Pope has ever been able to sway to evil the beliefs of the Church
What then should we consider the Inquisition to be? I'd say it qualifies as evil, and certainly was created and sanctioned by the Pope.
And corruption has long existed within the Church, (particularly in the times leading up to the Protestant Reformation). Granted, I suspect that it is less today (due to reform efforts as well as the loss of secular power of the Church), but I'd say it's a stretch to claim that evil has *no* power in the Church.
but religion without structure is like a night out drinking without structure. Beer after liquor never sicker, liquor after beer your in the clear!
Structured religion does not necessarily mean religion organized in the context of the Church. Christianity has structure, but one need not be a member of the Church to be a Christian. The Church is an organization built on top of the religion, it is not the religion itself. If the Church disappeared tomorrow, Christianity would still exist.
most of the more egregious abuses were the result of corrupt associations between lesser church officials and secular authority.
Agreed.
Blaming the Pope is just not fair
Well, putting the entire blame on the Pope would certainly be unfair. As you mentioned, many of the worst abuses were not due directly to the Pope's actions but were committed by lesser officials. However, the environment created by the Pope's position contributed to the abuse, and in that sense I think there is a certain amount of blame that should be laid at his feet.
His point was that, while individual popes might be corrupt, the church as a whole was not.
I may have misinterpreted his post, thank you for the clarification. However, if we use your interpretation, then I would ask this: at what point do we consider the "church as a whole" to be corrupt? If that would require every clergyman to be corrupt, well then I doubt we could ever consider the Church as a whole to be corrupt. But what if 60% were corrupt at some point? Is the institution considered corrupt, or not?
I tend to view corruption as a disease. The Church has been infected by it at various points in history to various degrees. Has it ever succumbed totally? No. But it has been sick, and that was simply what I wished to point out, as it seemed to me that he had been saying that the church had remained uncontaminated throughout history.
Well, I need to get to class, so I'll wrap this up. Hopefully I clarified my position.
--Stradivarius
I remember reading the news that after three hundred and eighty something years, Juan Pablo II (the Pope) had absolved (is this the right word?) Galileo of all charges. What were those then?
Are you kidding? No conflicts other than the Galileo affair? Let's look at the history of the Greeks and Romans, shall we? Many scientists and philosophers flourished under those cultures. Thales, Democrates, Eratosthenes, Hypatia, Euclid, Archimedes, etc. Who suppressed their works? Could it be... early Christians? Who preserved their works for Europe to rediscovered hundreds of years later? Could it be those "heathen" Arabs?
Let us not forget the other great accomplishments of Christian missionaries such as the complete destruction of Incan and Aztec culture. How about the Scopes monkey trial? Do you not call that a conflict between religion and science?
To call Christianity the birthplace of science is revisionism of the highest degree. The Greek, Roman, Chinese, Indian, etc philosophers conducted science just fine before Christ came around, thank you very much.
YEah, and those people in Salem, Mass were just a bunch of good protestants having BBQ.
People do stupid stuff. People who are scared do really stupid stuff.
pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
>>No, religion DICTATES what it expects us to swallow as "truth".
Actualy, I think religion is just a repetitive act of worhiping. (Think regular.. they both come from the same latin root, regularus) So often, "religion" has become known as a brand of faith. Personally, I think that religion is an action. The technique is largly dictated by social whims.
>>It would be interesting to know how many of the great events in history truly happened the way we were taught in textbooks.
Well, we can't even agree as to who "invented" the computer.. so that should tell you something. I will agree that they did do some editing. But you should look up information about the Septuagent.
>>The same goes for the bible, which was made by the Catholic church. They "edited" the dead sea scrolls and the old testament to fit the power structure they were seeking to make.
Dead sea scrolls were found in the 20th century. (1950's??) The dead sea scrolls contain very little of the current text of the bible. We would consider them Gnostics by todays standards.
>>Honestly, a reilgion which caused over a thousand years of dark ages has no right to get indignant about anything.
And I suppose the fall of the Roman Empire had little to do with it? You know the last emperor of Roma was a chicken farmer? Really. Actually, the Arians (or germans today) were a big reason. Rome had expanded over 3 continents and the Germans would swoop down on their horses and sack rome. Roman accounts written by generals regarded the germans as "Fierce warriors" and the organized Legions had no chance against them.
I wouldn't get to damn hard on the Catholics for this. Alot of greek philosophy and mythology was saved and lovingly copied by priests during the dark ages. And to think they had the OBJECTTIVITY to copy them so lovingly - even though the greeks were not monotheistic!!
I my dealings with Catholics, I would find them to be the only religion that has a policy of accepting other religions as true - though somewhat lesser - beliefs. If anything, the social pressures and mistakes in policy of the past have forced them to be MUCH more objective and LESS fanatical than you might think. Having been a non-Catholic(and at times downright heretical!!) at a Catholic university suprised me.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Respectfully (and without in any way addressing the content of your post), I submit to you that you're taking the moderation of your post a little personally. All the example you cite says is that one person with moderator access who read your post thought it was interesting: another thought that was overrating it. This is a far cry from "ruthlessly suppressing any religious message they don't agree with."
Of course, I can't comment on the opinion of the moderator who knocked your post down a rung. It wasn't me.
But hey, if you really believe in freedom of expression, then smile. After all, all the moderators are doing is expressing themselves by rating your (and my, and whomever else's) posts. If you don't care what they think, the answer is as simple as setting your threshold to -1.
'Tis true in a Hubblesque kind of way. Looking at the expansion, anywhere could be center. But there is nevertheless only one point in the universe that happens to be the center of mass.
And I have determined that it is my cat, Rumpleteaser.
---
Have a Sloppy day!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
compared with the coverage (or lack thereof) of not one but *three* violent attacks on jewish institutions in the last two months or so, the church shooting has gotten a heck of a lot of attention.
I was not writing to justify the house arrest of Galileo. I think that's something even the Roman Catholic Church would now agree was done wrongly.
The point is, the story of Galileo as persecuted by the Church for the "heresy" of heliocentrism should be thrown into the same category as that of Christopher Columbus "discovering" that the world was round not flat, or of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree as a kid. They are all fiction.
- Galileo was never found guilty of heresy; and in fact heliocentrism was never of itself declared heretical
- Every educated navagator of Columbus's day knew that the world was round -- the disagreement was over the circumference of the world (and therefore length of the westward voyage to the Indies). Columbus had the faulty figures, and would have died in the middle of the ocean if the Carribean hadn't been where he thought Japan was.
- And, the story of George and the cherry tree has a known author who isn't our first President.
So, what we have here is Katz repeating a "spun" version of the story, in order to play upon the supposed conflict of science and faith.As for Sagan, perhaps I'm reading too much into the end of Contact (the book, not the movie). Still, we do have the phenomenon of scientists making moral pronouncements about The Meaning Of It All, borrowing from their authority in the sciences to appear as "experts" on questions that are really philosophical or religious. And Galileo was a prime and early example of this.
I wonder how much of the world's knowledge of the Catholic Church is based on fanciful history, born of Reformation-era polemics and further warped over time? Think of your own comments, completely unsubstantiated, and full of hand-waving. A "spirited discussion" may be useful, but only if based on substantiated facts rather than vague polemics.
One would expect to find, for a 2000 year old Church that allegedly impedes science, quite a few examples of the science/religion conflict. That one can find no other alleged conflict for the Catholic Church other than the Galileo affair, and even that is revealed as something of a complex legal and personality issue than one of science (Galileo had no proof) or religion (geocentrism was not a dogma), is as Newman notes a case of the exception proving the rule.
Think for a moment. It is within Christianity that the university was born, that rigorous philosophical reasoning thrived, and where empirical science flourished. In every other culture, science was stillborn, never going far.
Christianity is where spirit and flesh meets, where God truly walked among men. Aquinas argued, then, that there can be no conflict between faith and reason. Embracing rather than shrinking from truth, Christendom became the birthplace and nursery of science.
It would be useful to keep in mind the context that my points are made. They were not intended to make sweeping generalizations concerning either science or religion, but aimed at the local topic. Firstly, heliocentrism was already proposed as a hypothesis. Copernicus, not Galileo, published that with Church approval. Galileo pushed it as established fact without empirical basis, offering little more than polemics. If this is your idea of scientific inquiry, then science is in pretty bad shape. Secondly, the Galileo affair took place in the context of Christianity, in a dispute allegedly concerning heresy. The point is that you cannot have heresy without dogma, and there was no dogma to violate. Consequently, the dispute was not really a matter of Christian doctrine, and the religious aspect of the dispute is secondary.
The Pope wrote an encyclical called Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) that gives a brief outline of philosophy. The gist of it is this: Christianity offered such a powerful explanation of the world that the older philosophy was thought to be unnecessary. There was no rejection of philosophy as a matter of doctrine, however. After all, St Augustine discovered Christianity by way of Plato.
While Islam got hold of Aristotle before Christianity, it remains true that Christian civilization willingly embraced and developed that old philosophy. And it remains true that only in Christian civilization that the empirical science that secular society prizes thrived and flourished.
With the advent of general relativity, the debate of what is moving and what is still is meaningless. It all depends on your frame of reference. Consequently, the debate on whether the earth moves is now obsolete. Feel free to find other things to argue about.
Galileo was one of the first flamers.. this is why the Church got upset with him, he wouldn't go quietly. If he were around today, Galileo would be posting on slashdot and have most of his stuff moderated down to -20.
> _"The irrefutable and the undeniable are the
/were/ immortal" - Stanislav Ezi Lec; "God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in His arms, but also a kind of superiority, soothing to their macerated egos; He will set them above their betters." - Mencken
two weapons that he [God] cannot use". Why? Because he wants us to
freely serve him out of love for Him: not out of fear, and his
precense "in anything but the most attenuated form" would overwealm
us.
Excellent point. Too bad that he made this silly requirement to believe in him in order to not burn in Hell for whole eternity. I bet when some of us burn there we'll be like "hm I sometimes wish hes presense wasn't THAT attenuated back on Earth."
Some UnHoly (TM) quotes:
"All gods
"If God were suddenly condemned to live the life which he has inflicted upon men, He would kill himself." - Alexandre Dumas; "The only excuse for God is that he doesn't exist" - Stendhal; "Which is it: is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's?"; "I cannot believe in God that wants to be praised all the time." - Nietzsche; "The impotence of God is infinite" - Anatole France; "God will forgive me; that's his business." - Heine; "He seems to have an inordinate fondness for beetles." - Haldane
-- ATTENTION: do not read this sig. It doesn't say much.
I can already hear the comments.. "How could he abondon her to a convent when she was 12.." "How could he never see her again" Although I haven't read the book (looks like an interesting read though) it seems like the only practical thing to do. Galileo knew what he was getting into with heresy and all, and truly the best thing you could do for a smart, loved girl at the time was to send her off to a convent, it was the only place where women could learn anything at all.
It's a shame, really that the times didn't allow women to be scientists too. I'm just glad I wasn't born then.
It's a big world out there Jon. If you only choose to look at stuff that relates to geekdom, you're missing alot.
I have to disagree with Zach on a couple of points.
First, I think that as a matter of principle, freedom of speech should allow one to profess whatever notions or beliefs that one cares to express. It is not the role of higher authorities and institutions to judge the validity of those beliefs, but rather the free marketplace of ideas. The Church's use of a house arrest, no matter how benign, is in fact an instance of state repression of personal expression, and is quite in conflict with the principle of freedom of speech. Of course, this is a modern notion, and we should acknowledge that the very concept of such freedom didn't exist in the 17th century. However, this does not justify the Catholic Church's actions in any fashion.
Second, I think that the key point of Sagan's books and videos is that they tried to instill the notion of rational skepticism in their respective audiences. In a world filled with pseudo-scientific garbage (astrology, Scientology, etc.) such voices are very desperately needed. The minds and hearts of future voters and taxpayers are at stake, and it is critical that we demonstrate the worth of rational thinking in evaluating ideas to them.
Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
Correct me if I am wrong but from what I recall he did his most important work after the church took away his telescope and put him under house arrest. Supporting Copernicus and Heliocentricty is all well and good but G. noticed some pretty stunning (for his time) stuff after while under house arrest for playing with a telescope. Little things like - the period of pendulum swinging (the story goes that he was bored in church watching the incense censors swinging back and forth back and forth) oh and there was the whole dropping two objects that weigh different amounts and noticing that they fall at the same rate - and lots of other stuff I can't remember since it has been awhile since I was in a Physics class
My first thought when I read the line about Galileo as a zillionaire today was Pons and Fleichman. Pons and Fleichman presented the concept of cold fusion to the scientific community and it was so revolutionary, so difficult to believe in the context of accepted scientific rules that they are pariahs, kicked out of the community and laughed at as frauds. There's some compelling evidence that Pons-Fleichman cells DO produce energy from some sort of fusion. (Check Wired's Article Their experiment was so exciting that they released it too soon... I think perhaps Galileo would have an equal chance of sharing thier fate..
The definition of geek that Katz employs is so vague...
:).
Here's the definition m-w.com (Merriam Webster) employs
It's equally vague
2 : a person often of an intellectual bent who is disapproved of
I think it's safe to say that Galileo fits this definition to a T.
Katz is a one of a few authors who really tries to take a look at geeks and the changing role they play in our increasingly tech-dominated society
Of course he writes everything with an eye towards how it relates to geeks, and I for one appreciate his insights and look forward to the debate on his interpretations
-StaticLimit
Look at your list of 'nerds' and you're 'exseptions' All the ones on you're list are 'normal' income people. and the ones who arn't are billionares.
I seriously doubt that Galileo would be a billionare, as he would probably go into the nerd catigory.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I must admit that Christianity in the US is coming out of a dark age right now. The previous generation seemed to have lost all touch with God and the light nearly died. But that doesn't invalidate it. Read the Bible (start with the Gospel according to John if I may suggest) and judge for yourself.
I'm sorry, "coming out of"? If anything there, at least the majority of people is entering a 'dark age' 40% of Americans don't believe in the theory of evolution 40 , Now, that's no insignificant number by any means. Now of course I don't have any information about 'fundamentalism' in the past in America, but it seems to me that fundamentalist Christians are becoming more powerful than ever.
I used to be a republican (well, a republican supporter, I wasn't old enough to vote), but when they came to power in 1994, it became apparent that they, to a large part were controlled by the Christian coalition. Again, I'm only 19 years old, and I don't really feel like looking into the 'historic' 1950s - 1980s, but I certainly wouldn't say that fundamentalist Christianity is in any way waning
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
To speak for the record, I'm one of those moderators whom you find amusing and give you fodder for your sociological musings. Yes, I moderated your initial comnment down as overrated.
you relise, that when you post this from you're acount, you undo all the moderation you've done, right?
Unless you're using another acount, you just gave this guy a point by posting
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
> What Galileo knew (and many today apparently do
> not) is that God and the hierarchy of the
> Church often have very little to do with each
> other! The assumption today is often that
> travesties like Galileo's treatment invalidate
> Christianity. They don't. They only invalidate
> organized Christianity.
This is the same argument that my Muslim friends use when I bring up the subject of bomb-throwing fundamentalists and the lets-just-say 'less than liberal' tendencies of some/a few/many islamic regimes: "But this has nothing to do with Islam, it's a perversion of Islam."
Maybe so, but if that's what the majority or any movement degenerates to, then that (in my eyes) IS the movement. I understand that your individual believes may be very different from the 'official' ones, but when the official church has the 'mindshare' (to use a geek term) and dominates public and cultural life, your argument is a bit odd. Most organized religious movements seem to claim that they are the only ones who know God's will and that all who disagree are sinners who have strayed from the true path and will find themselves in hell. That argument alone is enough to turn me off religion. I consider myself a spiritual person but given the/most faiths/churches' history, I want nothing to do with organized religion.
Strange, I started this as an argument but my last sentence seems to imply that we have somewhat similar believes about spirituality/religion.
Thank you, Mr. Wong, for writing this. As soon as I saw the Galileo issue appear on
Thanks for doing your part to the record straight. Myths and half-truths abound about this difficult and heated issue, and it is important that the facts be presented so that neither Galileo nor the Church is villified unjustly. You have presented a brief but (from what I have read about the issue) historically accurate and balanced view of the matter.
Haters of religion (or just of the Catholic religion) place the blame on the Church and its ignorance; haters of science place the blame on Galileo and his audacity; the right-minded man will weigh the actions of both within the historical context of the events, and he will come to the same conclusion that you have. Thanks again.
"Every major question in history is a religious question. It has more effect in molding life than nationalism or a common language."
-- Hilaire Belloc
I got more rhymes than Jamaica got Mangoes.
I would just like to point out that this is just Apologetics. Of course the Church is going to try to tell a different spin about what happened. You seem to be advancing a might makes right. Maybe G.G. had some things wrong. No scientific theory comes fully formed from the head of a scientist. Since when is punishment an accepted element of the scientific process?
I'm not into bashing Catholics. I know they get their unfair share. I used to be Catholic myself. (Now I'm an Atheist.) I've read a lot of Apologetics (e.g. www.catholic.com) and this is just more of the same kind of stuff.
One of my biggest bitches about /. is the constant re-invention of the wheel. As a group, /.ers tend to be 'I can do that' hackers while ignoring Science.
/. would be infinitely more useful if those that posted were supporting Science, not 'oh I did that last night so there, huh huh huh.'
Perhaps this review, along with its total bluring of the line between Science and hacking is a good place to discuss this.
Hacking is not science. Science is not hacking. The reason the 'scientific method' came into existence is to eliminate unfounded claims & hucksterism and separate the unfounded from the demonstrably provable.
I thought this review was crummy. It figuratively lowered one of history's great people into the moras of code hacks. He asked 'why', not "oh isn't this cool." A few more why's eligantly explained would make this a much better place.
I think with the telescope he proved that Jupiter had its own moons, and thus that there were things that didn't directly orbit the Earth. It's enough to disprove a terracentric view.
From my rather weak understanding of the inflationary universe theory, the universe everywhere is expanding. This means that everywhere (or nowhere) is the center of the universe. This is naturally rather confusing and difficult to envision. I think it means that space itself is getting bigger, so eventually commutes are going to get longer :)
Thank you for posting this. Wish I had moderator points to mod that one up. Too many people really do assume YVHV is the only god out there and that upsets me to no end (being Pagan and all...)
I appreciate both the Catholic and the Anglican article on this subject. As the popular culture is so Anti-Church and Anti-Christianity, all we hear are the "facts" that put the Church in a bad light. In this particular case, we see that it is not clearly, "Good Galileo-Bad Pope". There were obviously some mistakes made on both sides, but one would never know this from the history books.
Science and Religion should both be a discovery of the truth. Science studies the truth of our physical world while Religion seeks the Truth that includes and, yet, goes beyond that which science can discern. It would seem that the study of history should similarly seek to expose the true events of the past. In the same manner, the modern news media should present the facts of current events. Yet, history books, newspapers, and newscasts are often so steeped in opinion as to render the truth nearly invisible. Revisionist historians can paint any picture of the past they want to. We are forced to accept this based upon the credentials of the historian. Shouldn't the truth itself carry its own credentials? This is not to discredit all historians - we certainly benefit from our knowledge of the past. But, when the ego and opinions of the historian get in the way of the facts, when the "interpretation" of history is more important than all of the facts, we lose the truth. We might as well be reading a work of fiction rather than a history book!
It would be interesting to know how many of the great events in history truly happened the way we were taught in textbooks. How often have we received history and how often have we received propaganda?
Amen.
No, religion DICTATES what it expects us to swallow as "truth".
If you sit in a classroom, does the teacher not DICTATE what he expects you to receive as the truth.
They "edited" the dead sea scrolls and the old testament to fit the power structure they were seeking to make.
When were the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered? I don't know the exact date, but I know it was fairly recently (as in sometime in the last 200 years). When was the Canonical list of the books of the Bible compiled? Third or Fourth century AD, if memory serves me correctly. Did they purposely exclude the Dead Sea Scrolls? Ummm, I rather doubt it as no one was aware of the scrolls at the time the Canon was compiled.
If you could cite examples of how the Old Testament was edited by the Church, I would be happy to hear about them.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Wile E. Coyote embodies the spirit of discovery and scientific research. He keeps trying to possess the Holy Grail, despite repeated failures. His goal is always out of sight, but it is the question that drives him.
Also, he has the correct approach to debugging. Instead of staying stuck on a particular programming problem, he tries again and again, from different angles. He constantly reinvents himself to get the code to execute properly.
Furthermore, his inventions are Open Source, because he never hesitates to show everyone the diagrams of his inventions so that everyone can reproduce them and better them.
Finally, Wile E Coyote's methods are flawless; he is only struck with impossible bad luck. How many of us have felt this, at the wee hours of the night, trying to nail down a bug in some complex code, always certain we will nail it this time... But relentlessly faling, again and again? Wile E. Coyote is a model for every geek out there, to persevere whatever the cost, whatever the level of success!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Everyone seems to have their own history of Galileo!
If I remember correctly for most of his life Galileo was kept by a rich sponser who guided him in 'politic' expressions of his theories. During this period his main trouble with the church was his claim that the moon when seen through a telesope had features on it, wheras the church insisted the heavenly bodies must be perfect. (The moon's visible features were put down to imperfections in the eye).
It was later on when he was without a more worldly advocate and wrote a cutting satirical dialogue protraying the Pope as an ass that the church started persuing him for Copernican notions. My impression of this was that the church was motivated more by revenge than dogma.
Ironically several of the top astronomers of the period, who went on to verify many of his results, were monks at the Jesuit university in Rome.
But it's a long time since I read any of this, so I may have misremembered.
Maybe the majority in any religion will be at least less than ideal for the same reason that most computer programmers are simply time-clock punchers with little understanding of their jobs -- the majority in any area of human endeavour tends to be incompetent.
/.'ers who confuse verbiage with knowledgable content. Just because you know how to fill up a couple of paragraph's doesn't mean that what you have to say is impressive. If the information isn't put together to convey a cogent and relative opionion, it may in fact be considered "incompetent" :>)
My oh my. We sure are full of ourselves today aren't we. To use one of your words from a previous post, there certainly is a lot of hubris flying around here today, among other things.
Now I don't know if everyone around here is as "competent" as you,
but I don't know if I would be so presumptuous as to label the majority of mankind as incompetent.
To speak for the record, I'm one of those moderators whom you find amusing and give you fodder for your sociological musings. Yes, I moderated your initial comnment down as overrated. You appear to be one of the many
I agree with person who advised you to not concern yourself with moderation. If you have something to say, say it and move on. Does it really matter what I or anyone else has to say about your comment? I have a feeling, though, that you're one of those people who posts to gauge what everyone thinks about your illuminating comments. Believe me, your comments aren't that thought-provoking.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
I can only speak for myself but I did not moderate your initial post as overrated for its religious content. I know religion is a personal topic for some so that may indeed be happening. I moderated it as overrated because I didn't think your comment wasn't overly accurate (re Galileo's alleged persecution, as pointed out by later posters) and therefore not deserving of a "positive" moderation.
/. has put up a good system so that the deserving comments are not drowned out by people with an axe to grind, but we are all humans so we all bring our personal biases with us when we moderate. I do think, however, that the extremists in the moderation camp tend to be outnumbered by the, well, moderates :>)
I think
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
If you would be so kind as to modify "Religion" with "Christian" (ie Christian Religion) I'll accept this. I find the implication that Christianity is the only valid religion highly offensive.
Otherwise, your points are well taken. All Christian denominations have strayed from the original simple (though not simplistic) teachings of Jesus to greater or lesser degrees, inserting their own cultural biases and political contentions. Being treated rudely by an organized religion can sometimes serve to strengthen one's own faith in the higher power that religion is supposed to honor.
no sig please, I'm agnostic
I only heard of Virginia as the literary person in Bertolt Brecht's "Life of Galileo", to my mind a most relevant drama. She does not get half the credit she apparently gets in this book. But then, Brecht was macho. In the drama, Galileo spoils her marriage to a wealthy man by clinging to his ideas. After that she devotes her life to the church.
Galileo didn't invent the telescope, telescopes were already used for watching shipping come in to the city. With telescopes, merchants knew three days in advance that a shipment was arriving and could get their market ready for it. Galileo learned how they were made and built his own and pointed it up.
:)
But aside from that this books sounds quite intriguing. But that reminds me - I'm supposed to be at Science and Society class in a few minutes...we've been discussing Galileo for the last week...
OFTC: By the community, for the community
> That first caveman who invented fire
Fire occurs naturally, so it can be discovered but not invented. Much like genes and algorythms.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
> It seems that, in our society, it is okay to be
> anything but Christian.
That about sums it up. Every night on the news, you see some murderous fanatic claiming he did it because it was the 'christian' thing to do, or some self-proclaimed paragon of christianity preaching against the Constitution, athiests, television, . The actions of these high profile screwballs stick everyone else with a label. If you don't like the label, get rid of the screwballs.
.sig: Now legally binding!
I must say as someone with a degree in Physics and an admiration of Galileo as well as being a Christian I find this comment refreshing. However I do disagree with the last few comments.
What Galileo knew (and many today apparently do not) is that God and the hierarchy of the Church often have very little to do with each other!
Galileo believed in God, definitely, and he understood that shortcomings of those in power in the Church. However as this author has stated this did not invalidate Christianity nor did it invalidate Organized religion or the Roman Catholic Church.
Galileo was not a timid man. Several times in his life he went against the will of those who were in power. Why did he stop at the end of his life? Was he afraid, I doubt it. He probably finally decided to submit unto the will of those above him.
Galileo, probably understood those words of Jesus better than those around him and as well or better than many today. When Christ said "You are Petros (Latin male: Peter, stone - a name only used for religious purposes) and upon this petra (Latin female: Rock) I will build my church" and that Christ gave Peter the keys to heaven and the authority that "... what you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven."
Galileo understood that this setup an organizational structure to religion. It put Peter as the head of the Apostles and later what became informally know as pope(translated: papa). And he knew that "The gates of hell shall never prevail against her( the Church )". This has always meant that evil will have power inside the Church and her beliefs. And no Pope has ever been able to sway to evil the beliefs of the Church. However this says nothing about the outside world. (Those who believe that that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" actually appears in the U.S. constitution should just quit reading now.) Faith has it's place in everyday life including science. Infact one can not truly appreciate the physical world without keeping that in mind. ( credit given to my College Physics Professor for that ) However the Church can not decree what is science, something many religious leader both Catholic and Protestant have forgotten. It is the duty of the scientists to discover the hidden mysteries of the Universe. This is all the more satisfying when they achieve this in light of faith, and with the support of their religious leaders.
Yes Religion ( and life ) without Jesus is like Beer without alcohol, but religion without structure is like a night out drinking without structure. Beer after liquor never sicker, liquor after beer your in the clear!
hmmmm...what? Oh, I left this stupid
If you had studied your trigonometry, you'd know that the angle you can see around a sphere is related to the observer's height by a simple formula: the height of the observer (from the center of the sphere) is given by the radius times the secant of the angle. The distance across the surface of the sphere between the observer's nadir and the horizon is, of course, directly proportional to the angle.
What does this mean? Assume you're standing on a 100 meter cliff or tower looking over a waveless sea. The Earth's radius is about 6.4e6 meters, so the angle you can see is arccos( 6.4e6 / 6.4001e6 ) = 0.32 degrees. If there was a ship with a 50-meter mast, you'd just be able to see the tip of it over the sea if it was another 0.22 degrees beyond your horizon. Taken together, you could see 0.54 degrees, or about 32 nautical miles. A ship sailing at 5 knots would cover that in 6 hours and a fraction. Days in advance? Ridiculous.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Besides which, it's unclear that the loonie went into the church for any reason other than that it was there. He may have hated the whole world and the church building was the first thing he came to. If he'd driven his car over two dozen kids waiting for a school bus to take them home it couldn't be reliably interpreted to mean that he had something against education, youth or vehicles with red blinking lights either. The loon may not have known what he meant himself; the disconnect may be what finally drove him over the edge.
Stop taking every chance explosion of a loon that happens to come your way, or your individual sampling of volume of news coverage, as evidence of a conspiracy against you. It's probably just the editors' tastes, or judgement of what will sell advertising, not matching yours.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
> Wile E. Coyote: Isn't that one blatantly obvious?
Nope, Wile E would be a hardcore Windows user. He would continue buying Microsoft products no matter how often they blew up in his face.
numb
For a non-Roman Catholic perspective, here's a link to an excerpt from John Polkinghorne (a particle physicist and Anglican priest) regarding the Galileo affair:
http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/galileo.ht ml
" The actions of these high profile screwballs stick everyone else with a label. If you don't like the label, get rid of the screwballs. " Do you mean "screwballs" like George Bush, who once publically stated that he didn't think atheists were citizens. This is a scary statement coming from the (at the time) President of the United States. Screwballs come in all shapes and sizes, it's the ones with power you have to watch out for. Galalieo found that out.
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
Actually, it wasn't even the entire Church to whom he was being insulting (I know, I studied Galileo & wrote a paper on this issue for a class studying the history of science). He was attacking certain other scientists who had connections with people in the church! He even had support from certain Church officials at points. He just (purposely) stepped on the wrong toes, and got in trouble for it.
-ARJ
"Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product."
-Ferenc Mantfeld
I disagree with your point that if it had happened in a non christian setting it would have been widely decried. I don't think it had anything to do with religion. IMO, the reason it wasn't publicized as much as Columbine is because *kids* did the shooting in Columbine. People are apparently used to adults shooting and killing, they're just apparently surprised and appalled enough to generate a huge media swirl when children do it.
"We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents. We are willing to absolve you from them provided that first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in our presence you abjure, curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church in the manner and form we will prescribe to you. Furthermore, so that this grievous and pernicious error and transgression of yours may not go altogether unpunished, and so that you will be more cautious in future, and an example for others to abstain from delinquencies of this sort, we order that the book Dialogue of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict. We condemn you to formal imprisonment in this Holy Office at our pleasure. As a salutary penance we impose on you to recite the seven penitential psalms once a week for the next three years. And we reserve to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting, or taking off, the whole or part of the said penalties and penances. This we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, order and reserve by this or any other better manner or form that we reasonably can or shall think of. So we the undersigned Cardinals pronounce:
F. Cardinal of Ascoli
B. Cardinal Gessi
G. Cardinal Bentivoglio
F. Cardinal Verospi
Fr. D. Cardinal of Cremona
M. Cardinal Ginetti
Fr. Ant. s Cardinal of. S. Onofrio"
sigh.....
.....if you want to know the truth go out to http://www.fixedearth.com but only if your willing to let your "scientific" faiths be challenged by some good back-to-the-BIBLE facts
it is upon this lie that most of the collapse of modern society has been built. society violence, abortion, feminism, evolution, and most of the rest of society's ills are a result of the copernican/galilean lie
the people that call themselves scientists, that say that we're on a ball of rock hurtling around a sun, that there are "billions and billions" of other "galaxies" billions of years ago have such a deep hatred of the LORD that i wonder how they live with themselves..
fact: the space program performs all calculations using a nonmoving earth!
Hmmm... As I recall, Adolf Hitler called himself a National Socialist. So, I guess the various socialist parties in Europe are all anti-semitic?
-- Slashdot sucks.
Your point on hubris is well-taken. I'll just be a man and swallow the urge to rationalize it away.
However, I still find it interesting that the up and down moderation effect ONLY happens on posts with religious content. The more explicitly religious the content, the more it happens.
It doesn't seem to me that my posts on religious topics are any less rational than my posts on secular ones. Why don't my posts on secular topics see-saw up and down in the ratings like this?
Heaven forfend that I should speak against pseudo-scientific rationalism! I am forbidden from observing that some moderators seem to have an axe to grind, for fear that it might offend them. You, like many others, have completely missed the point of the moderator comment: namely that the slashdot population is not religious neutral (as they would like to claim) but actively anti-religious.
My opinion, and I managed to say it without trying to insult anyone. Wow, go figure!
-- Slashdot sucks.
I find the moderation system around here hopelessly amusing. Whenever I post on a secular topic, it tends to go straight to the top with no negative moderations. When I post admitting my religious biases, it tends to be moderated up (interesting/insightful) and down (offtopic, overrated). For example, the article above has currently been moderated up once (interesting) and down one (overrated). Which is it? I betcha if it were secular with similar quality of opinion it wouldn't have gotten the downcheck.
I always try to keep my comments at least mostly topical -- certainly as topical as the average. The only explanation I can conceive is that people moderate (up and down) based on their religious opinions. I thought moderation was not supposed to be based on whether you agree with the author? Didn't I read that somewhere?
Not that it matters... People will read, or not read. I just think it says something about that percentage of dotheads who will howl grieviously about censorship when someone wants to label their porn as porn, but will ruthlessly suppress any religious message they don't agree with.
Maybe I should start posting as a Buddhist and see what happens? I used to be a Buddhist monk and could probably fake it convinicingly. It seems that, in our society, it is okay to be anything but Christian.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Being "different" is not the sole criterium in determining geekitude. Galileo was a brilliant man, fine (by the time's standards) scientist, and made some important discoveries. But that does not necessarily make him a geek. Jon, your writing is very good, and generally relevant as hell (or at least interesting, even when it's not relevant), but please, man - get over the geek fixation!
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Do you really believe that, Katz? Do you think that genius and vision are automatically encouraged in our day and age? That's very naive. If Galileo were born today, and said that, say, the Sun travels around the Earth, do you think he'd end up with stock options?
No. He'd make a crappy website, spewing his ideas to anyone wants to hear him, and die in isolation and poverty, overlooked by everyone.
They used to antagonise the revolutionary thinkers in the old days; now said thinkers are just buried so deep in the crap no one hears them.
Of course, Galileo was arrested not because of his ideas, which weren't entirely new, but because of the way he presented them: he was inflamatory and insulting to the Church, as a way to shake up the foundations of contemporary thoughts and force people to react and acknowledge them.
So; instead of declaring he's heretic, Galileo would get a big, juicy lawsuit on his head. Don't go thinking we live in an age when genius is recognised. True revolutionary thinking always takes a few decades to cement, and a lot of these ideas die in the crap.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
There are lots of misunderstandings concerning the "Galileo affair", now
permanently engraved in popular legend. It looks like Katz has spouted a
few more of them, and perhaps invented a few of his own. Galileo was
neither heretic nor was heliocentrism a heresy, nor was he ever charged
with actual heresy: you can only be a heretic if there was a doctrine to
deny. Contrary to popular legend, it was never church dogma that the sun
revolved around the earth. Copernicus -- a Catholic priest -- published
his work on heliocentrism with Vatican approval and dedicated his work
to the Pope. No dogma, no heresy. The best they could come up with was
suspicion of heresy.
Had Galileo been rigorously scientific in the dispute, he would not have
gotten into his trouble. The main problem was that he advocated a
controversial thesis without any convincing proof. Telescope or no, you
can't easily prove that the earth revolved around the sun when all you
saw was stuff whizzing across the sky. One possible argument -- parallax
of the stars -- backfired in that his telescope was not sensitive enough
to detect the parallax. He used spurious arguments such as ocean
tides. He had no proof. The geek had no source code.
Another problem was that he had all the diplomacy of a bull in a china
shop. I do not understand how Katz could characterize someone as
undiplomatic and polemical as Galileo as "humble". He insulted the Pope,
got into a bitter dispute with the Jesuits -- he insisted comets were an
optical illusion -- and appeared to violate an order not to teach
heliocentrism. Leaving the strictly scientific field, Galileo insisted
on muscling into theology.
Mistakes were made on both sides of a rather complex affair. But Galileo
came under a fairly benign Inquisition, and his house arrest was spent
in relative luxury (a personal valet? Good grief). Any thread of torture
was a formality. He could receive guests, and finished some of his best
work then. Contrary to popular legend, Galileo's most important
contributions to science came before and after the heliocentrism
dispute.
One Catholic view of the mess can be seen at:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/GALILEO.TXT
Sigh. This is starting to sound like something I'd call "Geek Revisionism". Suddenly, everyone in history who made a significant impact was a geek.
Of course, most brilliant men were social outcasts. So that makes them geeks, of course. The definition of geek that Katz employs is so vague... I can easily say the following people were also geeks:
Adolf Hitler: he was a recluse and a misunderstood man with a vision!
Albert Einstein: he was a scientific-minded man who worked in the patent office and thus really loved gadgets!
Aristotle: a true geek, Aristotle went forth experimenting and exploring the world with a scientific mind.
Winston Churchill: An antisocial man who was alcoholic and manic-depressive, his analytical mind carried him through WW2.
Daffy Duck: Socially awkward, feverishly inventive, excitable and driven. Uber-Geek.
Wile E. Coyote: Isn't that one blatantly obvious?
Marvin the Martian: Exemplifies the social outcast in all of us true Geeks...
That first caveman who invented fire: Oh, man, Geekissimo!
I could go on. That's what you end up with when you broaden a definition that much; everyone ends up with aspects of the definition. Shesh, Geekdom is more than fun with gadgets. You're reading it like it's some sort of astrological sign.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
As those of you who have read some of my postings may have noticed, I am (or at least try to be) a devout Christian and pretty vocal about it. I am also in some sense a scientist, althought out of date and not professional. Is there a conflict? No. There is no conflict.
People seem to assume that philosophic naturalism must push out all other philosophies. Nothing could be further from the truth. I regard my own naturalism as the study of God's methods, and so, indirectly, the study of God himself. In fact, there are many places in the Bible (for example, half the book of Job) where God defines himself and his "Godhood" in terms of his creation. In Romans 2, Paul writes that God reveals himself to all men through the glory of His creation.
Where I draw the line is at the phenomenal hubris of assuming that what I can see with my physical senses is all there is. That's not to say that I don't see evidence for God -- I do. But that evidence is spiritual and (yes) emotional. Not rational. C.S. Lewis -- highly recommended -- said that "The irrefutable and the undeniable are the two weapons that he [God] cannot use". Why? Because he wants us to freely serve him out of love for Him: not out of fear, and his precense "in anything but the most attenuated form" would overwealm us. (I have probably misquoted: the book is Screwtape letters, and I don't have it with me).
Which brings us to Galileo: the quotes in this review make it obvious that Galileo was deeply religious. Yet the author seems puzzled by this in face of the persecution that Galileo suffered. What Galileo knew (and many today apparently do not) is that God and the hierarchy of the Church often have very little to do with each other! The assumption today is often that travesties like Galileo's treatment invalidate Christianity. They don't. They only invalidate organized Christianity.
Never forget that Jesus was a rebel against organized religiosity, and often sharply criticized the authorities of his day for their failings. Don't associate Him with something he never advocated. Religion without Jesus is like beer without alcohol: it may taste good, but in the end you don't get a buzz.
Anybody I haven't offended yet? No? Good.
-- Slashdot sucks.
I really wish those who keep flogging the Galileo myth of "brave Scientist persecuted by hidebound Chruch for selfless Pursuit of Knowledge" would apply some of that scientific viewpoint to actually reviewing what happened, and perhaps even (gasp!) revising their opining (in true Scientific fashion) based upon the facts of the case, rather than the received myth.
Otherwise, it certainly looks to me as if the Rational Enlightenment Scientific Geeks are the ones who are desperately clinging to their myths, while the Christians are the ones who are willing to look at the world and history as it actually is.
If there is a modern figure who shows us what Galileo would be if he were alive today, it is not IPO-enriched Internet geeks, but rather Carl Sagan. That is, the scientist who uses his scientific expertise to make himself out to be an expert authority on things religious. The proof that Galileo got himself in trouble with the Chruch over theology and not science is simply the number of Catholics ought to be the number of Catholics (including Kepler, Copernicus himself, and a whole bunch of Jesuit astronomers) who favored heliocentism (in even more accurate models than Galileo held) with no trouble at all.
Of course, stabbing a close personal friend in the back by making him out to be a fool in public was not a particularly diplomatic move, especially when that close personal friend happens to have just been elected Pope.
The Roman Catholic Church has admitted that they screwed up in handling Galileo (though not as badly as the mythmakers would have it). I am still waiting for the mythmakers to admit that they have treated the Catholic Church unfairly, or that Galileo might have been part of the problem himself. But I'm not holding my breath -- after all, what's historical accuracy and fairness, compared to a chance to flog religion in general and Christianity/Catholicism in particular?
"He was brilliant, humble and funny, qualities rarely seen in contemporary geeks and nerds, or anybody much."
I don't know about y'all, but I think that contemporary geeks and nerds are more likely to be brilliant, humble, and funny. We're all just a bunch of tech support people around here, but I know many people I'd put in that category, and my wife puts me in the same category all the time. I consider it a well-known fact that a large number of geeks are more shy/humble, good natured, even-tempered, humorous, and, of course, brilliant. Of course, we have the exceptions that prove the rule (Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs), but we also have role models like Linus, Alan Cox, and Woz. All of the latter seem to be good natured, funny, brilliant geeks.