Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2006 7:38:55 GMT -5
You wrote "It was only in 1992 that the Catholic Church exonerated Galileo and admitted their findings had been wrong"
I have had this argument here before. I fully support the Catholic Church in its quarrel with Galileo - he was using science to play politics. The church should not have had a confession about this guy as much as put forward its own point of view about the controversy.
|
|
|
Post by Please go on on Aug 14, 2006 15:02:19 GMT -5
You wrote "It was only in 1992 that the Catholic Church exonerated Galileo and admitted their findings had been wrong" I have had this argument here before. I fully support the Catholic Church in its quarrel with Galileo - he was using science to play politics. The church should not have had a confession about this guy as much as put forward its own point of view about the controversy. It was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. Please tell us what you believe was the political side of this trial. The church did put forth its own point of view and that view has been demonstrated to be in error, a fact that the church has acknowledged.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2006 7:30:33 GMT -5
If I recall... Galileo's work was supported by the Catholic church. The church saw his work as providing a better model for the movement of the planets. The church took Galileo's findings to show other countries the power of western science. But the church reminded Galileo he had no proof that the earth moved. The church urged Galileo not to politicise his findings against the church. The church took offense at Galileo writing a book where he mocked the Pope. The church presciently warned people where scientific and humanistic philosophies would lead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2006 9:02:19 GMT -5
Here is an interesting thought - was there ever, in the darkest days of western Christendom's crusades and pogroms, ever a thing called the Catholic Church? Catholic means universal. We have to be careful in blaming Catholicism for some of the darker moments of Christianity because what was done was not done in the name of the Catholic church, but essentially done because of Western thought. Every modern church was, back before Luther, for better of worse, a part of this great Mother Church.
|
|
|
Post by Not quite on Aug 15, 2006 10:27:21 GMT -5
If I recall... Galileo's work was supported by the Catholic church. The church supported scientific work. I do not believe it supported Galileo' work. The church did acknowledge the work of Copernicus and Kepler. According to the church, Galileo could present or defend the heliocentric theory, but he could develop it. This may be at some levels of the church but for Galileo the charge was suspicion of heresy. He was teaching Copernican Theory as fact. These theories were already known to the rest of the world and Galileo had written to others working in this field. The church did little to promote Galileo. And, at the time, that was true. The instruments to measure parallax were yet to be refined. The church urged Galileo not teach these theories as fact. In addition his publication of Dialogue was a slap in the face for the pope. True. However unfounded it was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2006 6:02:35 GMT -5
The church supported scientific work. I do not believe it supported Galileo' work. The church did acknowledge the work of Copernicus and Kepler. According to the church, Galileo could present or defend the heliocentric theory, but he could develop it.Not sure what you mean. This may be at some levels of the church but for Galileo the charge was suspicion of heresy. He was teaching Copernican Theory as fact.Heresy was the charge, but without Galileo's attack on the Pope it may never have been applied. It was simply an easy handle (a bit like how the Republicans attacked Bill Clinton for Monica Lewinsky!) Many in the church were dismayed at the controversy, and agreed with Galileo that the bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. These theories were already known to the rest of the world and Galileo had written to others working in this field. The church did little to promote GalileoFor example - the church showed its astonomical prowess to the Chinese. Being able to predict eclipses better than the emperial astronomers deeply impressed the Chinese. And, at the time, that was true. The instruments to measure parallax were yet to be refined.Parallax nearly killed Galileo's theory. He thought the sloshing of the tides may prove that the earth moves. However unfounded it was.The Catholic church held to the belief that science could unravel the age of faith, and help usher in an age of ungodliness. This proved deeply true. A question for you. There are two schools of thought - did the Catholic Church stifle knowledge, or did it preserve and promote it?
|
|
|
Post by Advancement on Aug 16, 2006 6:52:03 GMT -5
The church supported scientific work. I do not believe it supported Galileo' work. The church did acknowledge the work of Copernicus and Kepler. According to the church, Galileo could present or defend the heliocentric theory, but he could develop it.Not sure what you mean. The curch did not activly support the work but at the same time it did not prevent people from working to investigate various theories. Also, at the time the only peoplewho had the time and resources to work on projects that did not pay were the monks. It is probable that Nicolas Copernicus (Niclas Kopernik) was a priest. Well, 7 of the ten at his trial did sign the heresy papers. It is true that had he not been to vocal regarding his finding that he would hve escaped the trial. I was aware that a student of Galileo's was sent to China but it was in regards to a request from the Jesuit Ricci. I was not aware that other cultures were that far behind with the exception of the Japanese, who had not been all that interested in the heliocentric universe. Sunspots, for example, had been noted in China before 10 BCE. This would need some support! Science proved that some of the myths promoted were false. What was the age of ungodliness? The Catholic church has done more than most relogions in this regard. In general, Christianity has not been a friend of science and this continues today.Stem cell reseatch, genetic research in the 80's and 90's. I know researchers who had to leave the US an work in other countries to continue their research. The US is loosing geound because of the government's standon some of the basic studies being done. [/quote]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2006 8:26:32 GMT -5
Re "This would need some support! Science proved that some of the myths promoted were false. What was the age of ungodliness?"
The age of ungodliness is today. Absorb yourself in the culture of pre Renaissance Europe, understand its deep faith and religiosity, and then look around you at the world today.
Be careful when science claims to have "disproven" something. Recall Karl Popper.
When I refer to the Catholic Church and knowledge I meant from the 5th century onwards. There are two competing arguments, ie that the church destroyed knowledge, and that it saved it. It is likely both happened.
|
|
|
Post by Ages on Aug 16, 2006 19:46:50 GMT -5
Re "This would need some support! Science proved that some of the myths promoted were false. What was the age of ungodliness?"The age of ungodliness is today. Absorb yourself in the culture of pre Renaissance Europe, understand its deep faith and religiosity, and then look around you at the world today. I assume you are talking about the Middl Ages (400-1500 CE)? This included the Norman Conquest, the Crudsades, the Inquisition, the slaughter of tens o thousands of Jews, etc. It may have been someone's deep faith. As far as people being religious - it was a do or die situation. What was the culture? The vast majority of people were slaves at worst or serfs at best with no control at all over their lives. Popper is anoher discussion. Like any institution they saved the parts that were beneficial but were less worried about the parts that showed them to be wrong. Enron?!?
|
|