Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious • Hacker News Board

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#111

Post by nsxwolf » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 6:14 PM UTC

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #93

jkingsbery wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who is both Catholic and a software engineer, I find quite the opposite - people today are all too quick to villainize religion in general and Catholics in particular. I see people point out short comings that make up a relatively minor percentage of Church's history and impact on society, and completely leave out things like the preservation of Classical works, expenditures on science, the development of…

>As someone who is both Catholic and a software engineer, I find quite the opposite I find that religious people find persecution everywhere (war on Christmas for example) where it doesn't exist. Its probably difficult not to considering how protective we are to things near and dear to us. Perhaps you should consider that you are not an impartial viewer here. >loss of livelihood, others refusing to publish your work,…

I find it to be incredibly dismissive when presented with a list of great Catholic scientists throughout history, detractors brush that aside by essentially saying "Well, they had no choice but to pretend to be Catholic back then!"

What these scientists thought about their religion is often documented, but the detractors don't care to read any further as it might hurt their argument.

In reality, the enthusiasm for science in Catholicism comes from the knowledge that because the universe is created with a purpose, you can be confident that you will be able to find answers. There will be nothing capricious, arbitrary, or futile about the endeavor.

The great irony is the Big Bang theory is often given as a scientific alternative to the idea of a creator. Edwin Hubble usually gets the credit for it but it was actually Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#112

Post by smallnamespace » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 6:18 PM UTC

Stupid question: given General Relativity, and in particular that all reference frames are equally valid, including rotating and accelerating ones, in what sense is heliocentrism more 'true' than geocentrism?

E.g. you can pick a geocentric reference frame and all the math works out (albeit you'd need to define large fictitious forces, etc., but again, they are only 'fictitious' from the perspective of a different reference frame; in the chosen frame they look quite real!).

Isn't the choice between geocentrism and heliocentrism purely one of convenience, and we can simply pick and choose whichever reference frame is most convenient for calculation purposes?

For example, if I'm interested in things happening in daily life, I pick a reference frame at rest with respect to the ground beneath my feet. If I am figuring out satellite orbits, I use a geocentric frame. If I'm calculating a trip to Mars, I use a heliocentric frame (perhaps a rotating one).

If so, why do we still define heliocentrism to be more correct? Is the argument really an implicit throwback to Newtonian absolute space and time, which Relativity rejected?

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#113

Post by drzaiusapelord » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 6:19 PM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #111

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As someone who is both Catholic and a software engineer, I find quite the opposite I find that religious people find persecution everywhere (war on Christmas for example) where it doesn't exist. Its probably difficult not to considering how protective we are to things near and dear to us. Perhaps you should consider that you are not an impartial viewer here. >loss of livelihood, others refusing to publish your work,…

I find it to be incredibly dismissive when presented with a list of great Catholic scientists throughout history, detractors brush that aside by essentially saying "Well, they had no choice but to pretend to be Catholic back then!" What these scientists thought about their religion is often documented, but the detractors don't care to read any further as it might hurt their argument. In reality, the enthusiasm for sc…

I'd argue that curiosity that leads to science predates all religion and is built into our dna via evolution. I think projecting cultural motivators for natural motivation is questionable. In another culture you'd say Islam was a motivator for science and you'd be just as wrong. The evidence we have shows that this is a natural part of being human and would come about in any culture- and has! Our most innovating culture, the ancient Greeks, were pagans with relatively low levels of religiosity for example. Religious belief really has no bearing on curiosity and innovation but theocratic structures can, and do, hold back progress.

> knowledge that because the universe is created with a purpose, you can be confident that you will be able to find answers

Except the deeper we go down the more complex and chaotic things seem. The simplistic Newtonian age and doctors who just had to "rebalance" humors are long dead. I think your assumption here is fairly bewildering.

>they had no choice but to pretend to be Catholic back then!

Just because it bothers you doesn't make it any less true. Historically, most people didn't have a choice in religion. Apostasy was a serious crime in Christian soceities up until recently and still is in many parts of the middle east.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#114

Post by bduerst » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 6:20 PM UTC

jabbanobodder wrote: post #99

Scientific opposition is expected, that is the method in which science works. Scientist want proof for a claim, the church didn't want to be wrong.

That's not true at all. In fact, the church was okay with Galileo's models, but they were not okay with how he was slandering the leadership.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#115

Post by kevinwang » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 6:20 PM UTC

smallnamespace wrote: post #112

Stupid question: given General Relativity, and in particular that all reference frames are equally valid , including rotating and accelerating ones, in what sense is heliocentrism more 'true' than geocentrism? E.g. you can pick a geocentric reference frame and all the math works out (albeit you'd need to define large fictitious forces, etc., but again, they are only 'fictitious' from the perspective of a different re…

I think most simply, the entire solar system revolves around the sun and not the earth.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#116

Post by Florin_Andrei » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 6:21 PM UTC

acqq wrote: post #107

baldfat wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also worth mentioning: geocentric view was based on Aristotle and not scriptures. My undergraduate was in Theology and graduate degree was Historical Theology. Back then the dominate foundations of Theology in the Church was Plato vs Aristotle and one would consider themselves to be in the camp of one or the other and well Aristotle kind of won the popular vote back in those times. Here is the article on Artistole's…

No. The church thinkers actually believed what was in the Bible: Augustine, Saint Basil, St. Thomas Aquinas. And the scriptures were made by the people who understood very little about the world, compared to what the current science knows. Therefore the creation is described using the concepts that we today know for sure don't exist. Specifically, in the creation myth: "And God made the firmament, and divided the wat…

You are a little too quick to paint an almost caricatural image there, perhaps informed by more recent religious developments, such as the literalist interpretations (mostly, but not exclusively, an american phenomenon).

The reality is that the people who shaped the debates within the Catholic church back then tended to be well educated, and possessing all the attributes of one raising through a hierarchy - above average intelligence, determination, and skill. It is pretty extreme to describe them all as narrow-minded fundamentalists.

Before telescopes, Plato and Aristotle were state of the art knowledge in cosmology (inasmuch as this field even could be said to exist back then). An educated person, including top theologians back then, would have been well acquainted with their views. It is also the case that the Catholic church has been historically more open to scientifically-backed knowledge than most people give it credit for - look at all the Jesuits who had successful careers as scientists, while also remaining men of faith.

Please be aware that observing the (mostly american) present-day religious phenomena does not provide you a good basis for judging religious thinking in the past, especially that related to the non-protestant churches.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#117

Post by jcranmer » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

jnordwick wrote: post #88

What about the Orthodox? "The Church" is really an anachronism. You are speaking of the Roman church which is about only half of Christianity at the time: Western Europe. What about the other half of the Church? Eastern Europe, Russia, Asian, Norther Africa, the Middle East, Greece? How did they receive Galileo? I've always been fascinated by this total amnesia over the Orthodox Church as if it didn't exist or was on…

Actually, given the time frame, focusing on the Catholic church is already meaningless in Western Europe. The Reformation was already well underway, indeed Galileo was outspoken during the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

The Lutheran church was very anti-Copernican; Martin Luther himself condemned it as heresy 80 years before the Galileo affair.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#118

Post by spaceheeder » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

smallnamespace wrote: post #112

Stupid question: given General Relativity, and in particular that all reference frames are equally valid , including rotating and accelerating ones, in what sense is heliocentrism more 'true' than geocentrism? E.g. you can pick a geocentric reference frame and all the math works out (albeit you'd need to define large fictitious forces, etc., but again, they are only 'fictitious' from the perspective of a different re…

Not a physicist so my answer may be totally wrong, but my first _guess_ would be that geocentrism necessitates unequally valid reference frames. You would need different equations to represent the movements of Venus and Mars relative to Earth as you would need to represent their movements relative to each other. Or at least it certainly seems to me like you would at first guess.

Perhaps you could use matrix algebra to apply geocentric laws of motion to all reference frames, and then simply translate them into a reference frame where Earth is the "actual" center of things? But then you're just admitting that Earth isn't the "actual" center of things.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#119

Post by ziotom78 » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 6:25 PM UTC

elboru wrote: post #90

baldfat wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also worth mentioning: geocentric view was based on Aristotle and not scriptures. My undergraduate was in Theology and graduate degree was Historical Theology. Back then the dominate foundations of Theology in the Church was Plato vs Aristotle and one would consider themselves to be in the camp of one or the other and well Aristotle kind of won the popular vote back in those times. Here is the article on Artistole's…

Any good book you recommend about these topics?, a lot of things are not clear in my mind, like why is Galileo known for "fighting" the Catholic Church about this, but not Copernicus? I have to admit I haven't gone further than some Wikipedia articles.

"Blind watchers of the sky", by Rocky Kolb, is an awesome book about the history of astronomy which spends quite a lot of pages about Galileo's trial. It is wonderfully written and full of humor: Kolb is a notable astrophysicist, but also a gifted writer.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#120

Post by contravariant » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 6:26 PM UTC

sofal wrote: post #108

PakG1 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say that blind belief requires a closed mind. Everyone at the end of the day relies on faith at some level or other. Even scientists believe in their hypotheses until their hypotheses are proven wrong. Then they change their beliefs. The fact of the matter is that everyone still believes in something at all times. I have yet to meet a scientist who precludes his everyday thoughts with, "well, then again, it's a…

Scientists do not generally have faith in their hypotheses in the same way that religious believers have faith in the claims of their holy book or their religious leader. That would be an equivocation on the usage of the term 'faith', one usage being merely confidence or trust, which can be apportioned to the available evidence, and the other usage being a religious belief in doctrines regardless of available evidenc…

It sounds as if you've taking your conclusion that religious faith must be blind and ignorant and worked backwards from there.

I remain unconvinced that people who consider themselves religious are any worse at adjusting their world view to scientific evidence than people who do not.