Re: Liberal Christianity
chrisnice --
"galileo's belief was known. the church rejected your more reasonable 3rd position.
he did not have proof, you are correct. he did however, have plenty of evidence which supported it, which is why he came to his conclusion.
the church chose the least reasonable position and according to your link did so more out of spite for galileo than for any reason which might support their conclusion. "
You say, "galileo's belief was known". Which part? The proof by Tides? The Circular Orbits? If heliocentricism was "known" why couldn't the stellar parallaxes be seen? That was still lacking at the time. And Heliocentricism was never condemned by the Church as Heresy. What the Galileo verdict amounted to was an order by the Church for Galileo Personally to STFU. It then Did take the reasonable third approach to the continued scientific investigation of Heliocentrism by scientists who stuck to the business of science. There were even Jesuits studying the theory with their own telescopes.
A Scientific Objection to Heliocentrism during Galileo's time, From the Link:
"If the earth did orbit the sun ... then stellar parallaxes would be observable in the sky. In other words, there would be a shift in the position of a star observed from the earth on one side of the sun, and then six months later from the other side. Galileo was not able with the best of his telescopes to discern the slightest stellar parallax. This was a valid scientific objection"
Should the Church have forced Galileo to STFU? No. They were unjust and as you say probably spiteful in that decision. That is what John Paul II reversed. But the Church's intollerance for the Man Galileo is not the same as an intollerance of his science.
From the link:
"Galileo's condemnation was certainly unjust, but in no
way impugns the infallibility of Catholic dogma.
Heliocentricism was never declared a heresy by either
ex cathedra pronouncement or an ecumenical council."
The Catholic Church vs Science
From the Link:
"The Catholic Church really has little to apologize for
in its relations with science. Indeed, Stanley Jaki and
others have argued that it was the metaphysical
framework of medieval Catholicism which made modern
science possible in the first place. In Jaki's vivid
phrase, science was "still-born" in every major
culture--Greek, Hindu, Chinese--except the Christian
West. It was the insistence on the rationality of God
and His creation by St. Thomas Aquinas and other
Catholic thinkers that paved the way for Galileo and
Newton.
So far as the teaching authority of the Church is
concerned, it is striking how modern physics is playing
catch-up with Catholic dogma. In 1215, the Fourth
Lateran Council taught that the universe had a
beginning in time--an idea which would have scandalized
both an ancient Greek and a 19th century positivist,
but which is now a commonplace of modern cosmology.
Indeed, the more we learn about the universe, the
closer we come to the ontological mysteries of
Christian faith."
Should the Church have declared the Scientific Theory of the 19th Century that the Universe had no beginning as Scientific Fact? The Catholic Church may move slowly before declaring a Scientific Theory to be Fact. But at least it does move and it adapts its understanding of scripture so as to remain reasonable and rational in the face of scientific development. If you want to Condemn somebody on this basis look to the Calvinists and Evangelicals, not to the Catholics.
PairTheBoard
|