Originally Posted by
theengel
Pardon me, but you've just conceded that Galileo was not convicted of heresy.
Imagine how far you'd have gotten if you'd dug just a little deeper...
Like, you might have found that the Inquisition that 'condemned' Galileo was an office originally set up by the pope, but that it quickly turned into a political tool. Galileo comes at a time when huge portions of the population are just getting away from the idea of astrology--and that was brought on by the Catholic church.
Imagine for a second, most of the world believes that the movement of the stars is an expression of 'the gods'. The Catholic church is the one to finally convince scholars that it might be a perpetuating system of motion--a predictable one. Copernicus, backed by the church, came up with a mathematical system for PREDICTING planetary and stellar movement. That, in itself, is an incredible feat. Within a hundred years (and this is before they had mass communication) the church had taught this system to thousands of people, even though it completely went against what had been taught previously. Clerics, who did not understand the math behind his system, were wowed into belief. That was one of the first really big breakthroughs. Copernicus had it wrong, but his premise that there was a natural and cyclical movement in the heavens wasn't.
A hundred years later, Galileo comes along with another system. One NOT known at the time, and he's trying to teach it to bishops who'd already been told that Copernicus had it right. Another big change like that was hard to swallow--not just by the church but by civilization as a whole. And while the political force of the day (the Inquisition) condemned him for it, the secret was out and it didn't take long for the church to accept it.
Your accusation that the church stifled scientific study is as ignorant as the the claim that the medical professionals stifled the findings of Louis Pasteur. And I'm sure you can find public statements and legal documents condemning Pasteur, because that's exactly what happened. Pasteur was a pioneer who challenged 'settled science.' He was revolutionary. And he was right. He proved the scientists of the day wrong. But to say that the scientists of the day were stifling scientific discovery is just stupid. The scientists of the day were defending what they thought to be truth. They were protecting the industry from fraud... which they had every right and obligation to do.
The inquisition was doing the same thing. The men who condemned Galileo didn't understand his system--any more than they understood the system of Copernicus. They were protecting the world against fraud, as they had every right and obligation to do... as they were commissioned to do by the church and by sovereign governments. But the mere fact that they had anything to protect is evidence of the church's contribution to the sciences.
What if there were a major discovery today? One that slapped 'settled science' in the face? It would not be accepted at first. It would be ridiculed. So would that mean that ALL those who argue with it are stifling science?
That's a position impossible to defend.
Have you ever read any of Immanuel Velikovsky books or are you one of those who ridicule and reject his works? A good place to start and in keeping with the title of this thread is Stargazers and Gravediggers: Memoirs to Worlds in Collision. There are also his earlier works:Ages in Chaos: A reconstruction of ancient history from the Exodus to King Akhnaton
Ages in Chaos I: From the Exodus to King Akhnaton
Ages in Chaos II: Ramses II and his times
Ages in Chaos III: Peoples of the sea
Worlds in Collision
Earth in Upheaval
For a little lighter reading there is Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History in 1945, where he claimed that the history of the ancient Near East down to the time of Alexander the Great is garbled.
Bookmarks