Interview With Vatican Astronomer

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1331685965' post='2400335']
Then you would be wrong as well.

The Church's problem with Galileo was not his science, but the fact he wanted to update Genesis.
[/quote]

Not according to the historical documents that we have. If you actually read the charges, it wasn't with Genesis, it was with the Catholic Churches stance on such matters as the rotation of the earth, which was wrong and Galileo was right.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1331688987' post='2400387']
Not according to the historical documents that we have. If you actually read the charges, it wasn't with Genesis, it was with the Catholic Churches stance on such matters as the rotation of the earth, which was wrong and Galileo was right.
[/quote]

Which is why Pope John Paul II formally apologized in 2000, having previously said in 1992:

[quote][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3][left]—[/left][/size][/font][/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II"]Pope John Paul II[/url][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3][left], [/left][/size][/font][/color]L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

Nope. Copernicus who was a Catholic had already proposed in " [color=#000000][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=1] "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium""[/size][/font][/color] the sun was the center, not the earth at the urging of several cardinals and the pope. The problem with Galileo was he wasn't content to teach this as a theory that had no proof, he insisted that it was established fact. The man was granted a pension, given luxurious apartments and buried in consecrated ground in a Church.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1331689727' post='2400393']
Which is why Pope John Paul II formally apologized in 2000, having previously said in 1992:
[/quote]

Yes and none of this would have happened if Galileo would have been content with teaching it a hypothesis instead of a fact, which in fact was a promise he had made with the Church, then broke.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1331689727' post='2400393']
Which is why Pope John Paul II formally apologized in 2000, having previously said in 1992:
[/quote]

I'm glad that you mentioned this because it was necessary for it to take place. However it's unfortunate that some Catholics still believe that Galileo was the problem and deserved not appology, such as the individual that responded to your comment below.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1331690260' post='2400398']
Nope. Copernicus who was a Catholic had already proposed in " [color=#000000][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=1] "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium""[/size][/font][/color] the sun was the center, not the earth at the urging of several cardinals and the pope. The problem with Galileo was he wasn't content to teach this as a theory that had no proof, he insisted that it was established fact. The man was granted a pension, given luxurious apartments and buried in consecrated ground in a Church.
[/quote]

What you're saying is not true. If you read [i]Index Librorum Prohibitorum[/i], you will see that literature containing Copernicus theory were suspended until they could be re-written. This includes [i]De Revolutionibus[/i]. It also declared that the idea that the sun stood still and the earth moved were false and contrary to scripture. I can see why you'd blame the victim, Galileo for his imprisonment. Afterall he was warned to not push the issue further by Cardinal Bellarmine. And initially he distanced himself from the contraversy but as with every truth teller, his conscious wouldn't allow him to do so. When scientific evidence is so concrete, the only crime is to ignore it and pretend like it doesn't exist. Particularly when we're under physical threat. You say that he had no evidence. That is not true in the least bit. As a matter of fact, his evidence was so concrete that it withstood persecution and the most important, the test of time. He surely didn't pull this theory out of his rear.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1331690374' post='2400400']
Yes and none of this would have happened if Galileo would have been content with teaching it a hypothesis instead of a fact, which in fact was a promise he had made with the Church, then broke.
[/quote]

He never made the promise. What happened was he was approached and he initially agreed to go along with them. However blaming the victim is pretty low. Galileo did have fact and that is why his theory still stands. It was the Catholic Church teaching false science which soon withered away.

[4588686]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1331690260' post='2400398']
Nope. Copernicus who was a Catholic had already proposed in " [color=#000000][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=1] "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium""[/size][/font][/color] the sun was the center, not the earth at the urging of several cardinals and the pope. The problem with Galileo was he wasn't content to teach this as a theory that had no proof, he insisted that it was established fact. The man was granted a pension, given luxurious apartments and buried in consecrated ground in a Church.
[/quote]

And does the Church have the right to determine what is and is not proper scientific methodology and conclusions again?

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1331690374' post='2400400']
Yes and none of this would have happened if Galileo would have been content with teaching it a hypothesis instead of a fact, which in fact was a promise he had made with the Church, then broke.
[/quote]

Well, yeah, sure, but it still doesn't really change that he was right and the theologians in the Church had to re-evaluate how they were interpreting scripture. But people really do blow his whole situation out of proportion. You'd think that a formal apology would finally put this issue to rest...

But then again, pulling out Galileo on Catholics in a discussion about science is pretty much a subcategory of Godwin's Law.

[4588686]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1331697212' post='2400468']
Well, yeah, sure, but it still doesn't really change that he was right and the theologians in the Church had to re-evaluate how they were interpreting scripture. But people really do blow his whole situation out of proportion. You'd think that a formal apology would finally put this issue to rest...

But then again, pulling out Galileo on Catholics in a discussion about science is pretty much a subcategory of Godwin's Law.
[/quote]

I think the point of the affair, for me at least, is not the the Church authorities bears and present guilt for the stupidity and pettiness of their predecessors . Rather, it is a demonstration of why religious postulates should never be used to trump evidence based argument and why the Church should never be given any sort of veto power in our society. It is a private religious confession. It's merits are subjective. There's no proof to it and no rational foundation for it. There is, therefore no way to argue against it. You can't use math to argue against 'The scriptures say that the Sun revolves around the earth and the scriptures come from God, therefore you are wrong QED' Ecclesiastical claims take the argument away from a common, and objectively accessible plane and moves it onto a plane where men of dubious qualifications have the final say and their decision has no real check.

The Church had honest reasons for thinking Galileo was wrong. His claims were contrary to Aristotelian physics and, since math did not have the prominence that it does today, his evidence did seem weak. We often don't appreciate how mind shattering heliocentrism was (Nietzsche has a beautiful quote about this, but I can't remember where I read it). The point wasn't that the Church's caution was totally groundless, but that they never should have been (and should never be again) given the power that they had over the secular.

[Nihil Obstat]

The Church doesn't belong in the realm of politics anyway, period. It's dirty work, and completely beneath Her. It's more honourable to shovel dung. I have serious doubts that anybody can be involved with that without compromising his morals.

[Deus te Amat]

I think something you all are missing is that Galileo's heliocentricsm was wrong, too. He distinctly denied Kepler's elliptical orbits, arguing instead for the perfection of the circle. Mathematically, Galileo's system had the same margin of error and planetary tracking problem as traditional geocentrism. To teach heliocentricsm as truth, Bellarmine wanted tangible proof to deny traditional, centuries old Aristiteliansm. Galileo could not provide this, and thus was only able, and indeed, allowed, to teach a heliocentricsm as a useful theory that made some calculations easier.



Edited for word choice.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Deus_te_Amat

[Laudate_Dominum]

What's happening here? Btw, that video was way too short. I've seen full interviews with Br. C. on teh interwebs. He has a blog too.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Deus_te_Amat' timestamp='1331699964' post='2400488']
I think something you all are missing is that Galileo's heliocentricsm was wrong, too. He distinctly denied Kepler's elliptical orbits, arguing instead for the perfection of the circle. Mathematically, Galileo's system had the same margin of error and planetary tracking problem as traditional geocentrism. To teach heliocentricsm as truth, Bellarmine wanted tangible proof to deny traditional, centuries old Aristiteliansm. Galileo could not provide this, and thus was only able, and indeed, allowed, to teach a heliocentricsm as a useful theory that made some calculations easier.



Edited for word choice.
[/quote]
Can you go into some detail on the margins of error and the planetary tracking problems that existed in Galileo's system? That's really interesting to me and it would make great conversation.

[4588686]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331701617' post='2400495']
Can you go into some detail on the margins of error and the planetary tracking problems that existed in Galileo's system? That's really interesting to me and it would make great conversation.
[/quote]

You may enjoy Khun's [color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought.[/font][/color]

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][color="#000000"]​It's a pretty interesting historical work and goes into great detail regarding the philosophical and aesthetical prejudices that helped support the adoption of Copernicus' model despite the fact that Potolmy's model (or reather, developments on his model) were technically more precise. It's a bit frustrating to read if you've already read some of Kuhn's more advanced stuff since you see the embryonic but underexplored themes that he would later develop more fully. But as a history it's pretty good. [/color][/font]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Copernican-Revolution-Planetary-Astronomy-Development/dp/0674171039"]http://www.amazon.com/Copernican-Revolution-Planetary-Astronomy-Development/dp/0674171039[/url]

[4588686]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1331690260' post='2400398']
Nope. Copernicus who was a Catholic had already proposed in " [color=#000000][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=1] "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium""[/size][/font][/color] the sun was the center, not the earth at the urging of several cardinals and the pope. The problem with Galileo was he wasn't content to teach this as a theory that had no proof, he insisted that it was established fact. The man was granted a pension, given luxurious apartments and buried in consecrated ground in a Church.
[/quote]


How about Giordano Bruno? Why did he have it coming?

[Aloysius]

I don't think the Vatican Astronomer here is at all historically illiterate or anything, Hasan, you have taken a single statement and decided that his view of history is perposterous and wrong, without considering the possibility that your interpretation of his statement was what was preposterous and, while you have now incited a Galileo debate (and oh what fun such things are, it is just too bad we don't have some Sungenite modern geocentrists along for the ride, they do make it all the more fun), I think it only fair that I defend poor Bro. Guy the Vatican Astronomer. (I suggest that in furtherance of this conversation, we all pronounce his name like "Bro Guy" pronounced like the english word guy and the slang word bro, because it just seems like a razzle dazzle thing to do lol)

I believe he is actually trying to say that the idea that science and faith are mutually exclusive was unknown within the Catholic community prior to the 19th century. In the 19th century onwards, there was more and more of an anti-science science sentiment within the Church. of course the idea was promoted outside of the Church in prior times, but it was in the 19th century and onwards that within the Church the faithful began to basically concede defeat among the sciences and just say, basically, "so much the worse for science", and among Christians you devolved into a bit of insanity where dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to confuse people and all that kind of nonsense.... this is the idea that arose in the 19th century that he's arguing against, the "see no science, hear no science, speak no science" attitude of fundamentalists within the faith.

I don't think he was clear enough here, but I do think that this is entirely what he was intended to say. He's talking to Catholics about the idea among Catholics that science and faith are incompatible, saying that before the 19th century no Catholic would think that at all. listen to him again with this interpretation and tell me that I'm wrong; I suggest giving Bro Guy the Vatican Astronomer the benefit of the doubt here, he's an educated man, and he's a bona-fide scientist, and I don't think he's just being daft. I think he's trying to remind Catholics of their patrimony in the sciences, trying to remind them that they should have nothing to fear from science, for it is just the pursuit of the truth, trying to remind them that Faith and Reason are not opposing forces even if faithful fundamentalists since the 19th century have suggested that they are.