![\"GalileoTrial2\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/09\/GalileoTrial2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Galileo Before the Holy Office<\/em>, by\u00a0Joseph Nicolas Robert-Fleury (1797-1890)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Clinton Hooper is an agnostic. He showed up in a Facebook thread<\/a> of mine that had a meme with 16 Catholic scientists. It sarcastically stated: \u201cCatholics are Anti-Science. We\u2019d Probably be in the Space Age by Now if it Weren\u2019t for Those Catholics.\u201d His words will be in blue<\/span>. I won\u2019t bother to correct all of his lack of capitals, etc.<\/p>\n How many of those catholics were catholics because to openly not<\/em>\u00a0be catholic during their time was basically a death sentence\u2026.<\/span><\/p>\n I should rephrase I suppose\u2026 how many of those catholics were quite literally ordered under threat of imprisonment and the possibility of torture to not disagree with the church\u2026.\u00a0easiest example: galileo\u2026. may have been catholic, but he was also explicitly ordered not to hold a heliocentric view by the church and subsequently imprisoned by the church\u2026 how much worse would that punishment have been if he had been like \u201cmeh, i\u2019m not a catholic anymore either!\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n [I posted links to three of my related papers]<\/p>\n Galileo: The Myths and the Facts<\/a>\u00a0[5-11-06]<\/p>\n \u201cNo One\u2019s Perfect\u201d: Scientific Errors of Galileo and 16th-17th Century Cosmologies<\/a>\u00a0[7-29-10]<\/p>\n Dialogue on the Galileo Fiasco and the State of Scientific and Astronomical Knowledge in 1633<\/a>\u00a0(vs. Eric G.) [5-13-06]<\/p>\n The Church clearly made mistakes in the Galileo affair, but none that affected infallibility. Galileo was sentenced to a luxurious palace with a supporter.<\/p>\n This is nothing like how the \u201cenlightened\u201d atheists in France treated great scientists. Lavoisier, the father of chemistry, was killed<\/a>. For some reason, no one ever hears about that<\/em> at all!<\/p>\n i\u2019m glad you can google, but nothing you\u2019ve posted disagrees with what I said\u2026. in 1633 galileo was imprisoned for the rest of his life under \u201chouse arrest\u201d\u2026 being comfortable does not make a prison any less of a prison.<\/span><\/p>\n Not to mention the \u201cofficially atheist\u201d Chinese and Soviet treatment of scientists<\/a>.<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t about atheists\u2026 or protestants\u2026. it\u2019s about catholics. Also, galileo according to the first article you posted galileo was only in the palace for a few months. he spent the rest of his life under house arrest with \u201cfriends\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n I wasn\u2019t Googling. These are all my own papers.<\/p>\n What is your worldview, Clinton?\u00a0Yes, it\u2019s about Catholics. We freely admit that we screwed up about Galileo. But things must be put into perspective, and a fair-minded approach taken. That\u2019s what I attempt to do in my treatments of it. There is a huge double standard. It\u2019s always Catholics and their error here [that are brought up].<\/p>\n Never mind that scientists at the time were, e.g., neck-deep into astrology<\/a>. No one ever hears about that. Never mind that Galileo\u2019s notion of scientific method was less modern than Bellarmine\u2019s was. Never mind that Copernicus\u2019 famous book was endorsed by the pope at the time.<\/p>\n It\u2019s only Catholics who are supposedly \u201canti-science.\u201d<\/p>\n My<\/em><\/strong> point in bringing up Lavoisier is obviously to argue: \u201cif you are gonna get all righteously indignant about Galileo\u2019s house arrest, as if this is the height of anti-scientific bigotry, then also get much more<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0indignant about Lavoisier being murdered<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0by the French radicals of the so-called \u2018Enlightenment.'\u201d<\/p>\n Don\u2019t simply highlight one bad thing and ignore a far worse thing. That gives a wrong impression and is lousy history. But it happens all the time. The analyses are so often anti-Catholic in motivation.<\/p>\n Fair enough, the google comment was out of line.<\/span><\/p>\n My world view is irrelevant to the conversation, however I believe that there may or may not be a god. go back far enough and there\u2019s still things that science cannot answer with current theories. who\u2019s to say that far enough back there wasn\u2019t a creator and he didn\u2019t put all of this into motion\u2026. go back far enough and even science relies upon blind faith in the form of assumptions.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t take issue with catholics in particular, and I don\u2019t really think Catholicism in its current state is anti-science\u2026 but that doesn\u2019t mean that it was always the case. galileo is a prime example of this. was galileo wrong? absolutely, that\u2019s the way science works\u2026 we\u2019re constantly disproving someone else by presenting a better argument\u2026 <\/span><\/p>\n When the discussion is stifled by fear of persecution by the church, then the church (at the time) is anti-science. pretty much every major form of Christianity has been anti-science at one point or another.<\/span><\/p>\n I should say pretty much every major form of religion, including atheism, has been anti-science at one point or another.<\/span><\/p>\n Thanks for sharing your worldview, and I appreciate the qualifying statements.<\/p>\n Worldviews are always relevant to conversations, because everyone has a bias, and opposing positions have to be informed as to what someone\u2019s position is in order to sensibly argue against them (because knowledge of premises of one\u2019s debate opponent is key to all constructive dialogue).<\/p>\n You being an agnostic means that you will tend to view things in certain ways regarding all sorts of topics, just as I will tend to have many views because of being a Catholic.<\/p>\n I also put together an entire book about this issue<\/a>.<\/p>\n Herein lies the problem. my worldview is not pertinent to the facts\u2026 you are arguing against me<\/em>\u00a0rather than discussing the facts. not to say this isn\u2019t a perfectly valid strategy in order to \u201cwin\u201d a debate, but it\u2019s not the most effective way to get to the truth.<\/span><\/p>\n Worldviews are relevant for precisely the reason I gave: it creates some<\/em>\u00a0bias and others need to know about that. I am biased too. That\u2019s all<\/em>\u00a0I\u2019m saying.<\/p>\n I\u2019m not arguing against \u201cyou\u201d as an agnostic. That\u2019s silly and a piece of sophistry. I have made all kinds of arguments in my papers and book on science; that the Galileo fiasco is not the height of \u201canti-science\u201d in the history of the world. Far, far\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>from that . . .<\/p>\n I used to think much like you when I was an evangelical. I thought that the Catholic Church was uniquely anti-science, till I studied the actual facts about the Galileo case.<\/p>\n It was temporarily, partially \u201canti-science\u201d in a sense, and in a much more limited way than the standard secular \/ Protestant critical (and sometimes anti-Catholic) approach portrays it.<\/p>\n \u201chow many of those catholics were catholics because to openly NOT be catholic during their time was basically a death sentence\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Yeah; how many priests and nuns had their heads chopped off in \u201cEnlightened\u201d France simply for being Catholics? You tell me. Again, if we\u2019re gonna criticize one viewpoint, concerning a time when things were pretty universally intolerant, let\u2019s be sure to do comparisons, so no one gets the impression that only<\/em>\u00a0Catholics persecuted folks, as if the secular \/ agnostic crowd did not do so.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n As soon as these clowns got power in France, they started killing tens of thousands of people for disagreeing with them: priests, nuns, great scientists . . . And that was supposedly \u201cenlightened\u201d and a reaction against all those wicked intolerant Catholics.<\/p>\n Here are the numbers of murders in less than one year, in the Reign of Terror<\/a> in France [1793-1794]: \u201cThe death toll ranged in the tens of thousands, with 16,594 executed by guillotine (2,639 in Paris), and another 25,000 in summary executions across France.\u201d [Wikipedia article]<\/p>\n You keep trying to compare\u2026 saying \u201coh well these people were much worse!\u201d\u2026 well getting punched in the gut is not as bad as being punched in the face, but it\u2019s still being punched. in much the same way what happened elsewhere in the world was worse, but that doesn\u2019t mean that the church wasn\u2019t bad. the question at hand is not \u201cwas the world anti-<insert literally anything>\u201d but specifically \u201cis\/was the catholic church anti-science\u201d\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n In that limited scope of topic, literally anything else is irrelevant. my beliefs, your beliefs, the \u201cenlightened\u201d and the reign of terror.. all irrelevant to the question of \u201cis\/was the catholic church anti-science\u201d\u2026.. this scope limitation isn\u2019t brought about by me, but by your original post.<\/span><\/p>\n Oh and by the way, never once did I say or even imply that what happened to galileo was unique to the catholics nor the \u201cheight of anti-science\u201d\u2026 just that it was an excellent example of the church being anti-science for a time.<\/span><\/p>\n Well, you didn\u2019t put it in such a sophisticated, nuanced fashion the first time. You stated: \u201chow many of those catholics were quite literally ordered under threat of imprisonment and the possibility of torture to not disagree with the church.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, how many? Good question. Why don\u2019t you tell us how many you think it was, and give us documented examples? You came up with Galileo as your \u201ceasiest example.\u201d<\/span> He wasn\u2019t tortured. He was put under a relatively luxurious house arrest.<\/p>\n Since you imply that such things were widespread, why don\u2019t you give us some more examples? If you can\u2019t, then don\u2019t go around implying that it was common, expected treatment for scientists to be threatened with imprisonment and torture in Catholic circles.<\/p>\n One anomalous example of poor treatment of a scientist doesn\u2019t overcome the meme and establish that as a general rule, Catholicism was \u201canti-science.\u201d It was not. We had a short period of time when the Church wrongly assumed that geocentrism was factually true: just a few decades after the great scientist Tycho Brahe held the same position, and when virtually all of the leading scientists (including Galileo) were enthralled with the pseudo-science of astrology.<\/p>\n There\u2019s every reason to believe that Copernicus would have faced similar trial and imprisonment as galileo had he not died shortly after publishing his book on the same topic. according to my friend google (which I readily acknowledge does not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth) here are a couple of examples other than galileo\u2026. <\/span><\/p>\n Bacon was imprisoned, and the church restricted him (as friar) from publishing works without their specific approval\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n Descartes fled from france and take refuge in Sweden, to have his works banned by the catholic church after he passed\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n Now, how many of the folks who had their works banned or condemned overall were catholic I don\u2019t know\u2026 but the number of scientists and philosophers condemned by the church, or who had works banned\/condemned by the church seems to be quite large for an organization that has never been anti-science.<\/span><\/p>\n It seems to me that the church went through a good long stretch where some science was embraced, so long as it didn\u2019t contradict with anything they had previously taught\u2026. but where works exhibited support for ideas that didn\u2019t necessarily agree with the church got their authors in some serious trouble.<\/span><\/p>\n [Roger] Bacon is not a very good example of your dubious thesis. According to Wikipedia<\/a>:<\/p>\n The Condemnations of 1277 banned the teaching of certain philosophical doctrines, including deterministic astrology. Some time within the next two years, Bacon was apparently imprisoned or placed under house arrest. This was traditionally ascribed to Franciscan Minister-General Jerome of Ascoli, probably acting on behalf of the many clergy, monks, and educators attacked by Bacon\u2019s 1271 Compendium Studii Philosophiae. Modern scholarship, however, notes that the first reference to Bacon\u2019s \u201cimprisonment\u201d dates from eighty years after his death on the charge of unspecified \u201csuspected novelties\u201d and finds it less than credible. Contemporary scholars who do accept Bacon\u2019s imprisonment typically associate it with Bacon\u2019s \u201cattraction to contemporary prophesies\u201d, his sympathies for \u201cthe radical \u2018poverty\u2019 wing of the Franciscans\u201d, interest in certain astrological doctrines, or generally combative personality rather than from \u201cany scientific novelties which he may have proposed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus, scholars either question that it took place at all<\/em>, or hold that if it did<\/em>, it had nothing to do with science<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n You are switching the topic yet again, too. Note your statement that I challenged you to substantiate:<\/p>\n \u201chow many of those catholics were quite literally ordered under threat of imprisonment and the possibility of torture to not disagree with the church.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Having one\u2019s work banned is not<\/em>\u00a0an example of \u201cthreat of imprisonment and the possibility of torture.\u201d Apparently, you tried to find some examples and couldn\u2019t find any, and so decided to bait-and-switch and start arguing against something entirely different: having one\u2019s works censored (hoping that no one would notice that you switched horses in mid-stream).<\/p>\n There can be various possible good arguments against censorship in a given case. But in any event, that is a different issue from \u201cthreat of imprisonment and the possibility of torture\u201d<\/span>. Therefore, your query remains essentially undocumented.<\/p>\n If Galileo\u2019s house arrest (with no torture) is supposedly the best incident you can bring up as to the Church supposedly being \u201canti-science\u201d it is a pitifully weak argument indeed.\u00a0Your point about Copernicus is, of course a mere argument from silence<\/em>. Copernicus\u2019 work was encouraged by the Church of the time. Surely, that is a more relevant point to note than your hypothetical speculations about what possibly might<\/em> have happened, had he not died after publishing his masterpiece.<\/p>\n But you get an E for effort and chutzpah<\/em> . . .<\/p>\n I suppose you\u2019re right, being censored and being threatened are\u00a0<\/em>two different things, I offer those as examples because a- the names were people included in your meme, so they\u2019re particularly relevant to the discussion even if they\u2019re not directly answering your question\u2026 and b- that in that age being censored and being charged with heresy seem to often accompany one another. <\/span><\/p>\n There are many examples i found where philosophers, mathematicians, scientists and\/or \u201cfree thinkers\u201d were charged with heresy for owning their opinions that disagreed with the church, I didn\u2019t use those because I didn\u2019t know if they were catholic or not.<\/span><\/p>\n The fact that scientific writing of the day was forced to present any finding without expressing any kind of opinion (ie presenting their opinion simply as a possibility instead of being able to actually endorse it), for fear of persecution by the church is almost enough for me to draw a conclusion by itself\u2026 almost.<\/span><\/p>\n There\u2019s also a difference between galileo being the only clearly documented example of the threat of arrest and torture that I can easily find (lets be clear, I spent less than two minutes phrasing searches on google just to find what I did)\u2026 and his being the only example of the church being anti-science. every example I\u2019ve given shows the church as anti-science during that time.<\/span><\/p>\n You can have the last word. Here are\u00a0a few more links to my related papers:<\/p>\n Richard Dawkins\u00a0&\u00a0Double Standards of the \u201cReligion vs. Science\u201d Mentality \/ Galileo Redux<\/a>\u00a0[3-20-08]<\/p>\n Cardinal Newman on Galileo and the Alleged Dogmatic Status of Geocentrism<\/a> [6-16-11] [Internet Archive; allow time to upload]<\/p>\n Galileo, Bellarmine, & Scientific Method\u00a0[<\/a>10-20-15]<\/p>\n \u201cScience vs. Religion\u201d Chronicles: 16th-17th Century Astronomers\u2019 Acceptance of Astrology<\/a>\u00a0(+ Part Two<\/a>*) [5-25-06]<\/p>\n Christianity: Crucial to the Origin of Science\u00a0[<\/a>8-1-10]<\/p>\n Christian Influence on Science: Master List of Scores of Bibliographical and Internet Resources (Links)<\/a>\u00a0[8-4-10]<\/p>\n 33 Empiricist Christian Thinkers Before 1000 AD<\/a>\u00a0[8-5-10]<\/p>\n Christians or Theists Founded 115 Scientific Fields<\/a>\u00a0[8-20-10]<\/p>\n St. Augustine: Astrology is Absurd<\/a> [9-4-15]<\/p>\n Did St. Thomas Aquinas Accept Astrology?<\/a>\u00a0[5-30-06]<\/p>\n Catholics & Science #1: Hermann of Reichenau<\/a> [10-21-15]<\/p>\n Catholics & Science #2: Adelard of Bath<\/a> [10-21-15]<\/p>\n Science and Christianity (Copious Resources)<\/a> [11-3-15]<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Surveys of Current Religious Beliefs of Scientists [<\/a>10-18-10]<\/p>\n Books by Dave Armstrong: Science and Christianity: Close Partners or Mortal Enemies?<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[10-20-10]<\/p>\nFlat Earth: Biblical Teaching?<\/a>\u00a0(vs. Ed Babinski) [9-17-06]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAtheist Myths: \u201cChristianity vs. Science & Reason\u201d<\/a> (vs. \u201cdrunkentune\u201d) [1-3-07]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nReply to Atheist Scientist Jerry Coyne: Are Science and Religion Utterly Incompatible?<\/a>\u00a0[7-13-10]<\/div>\n\n