Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 226 posts

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#201

Post by acqq »

countingteeth wrote: post #182
acqq wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is laughably wrong. Aristophanes wrote an entire comedy on the subject, "The Clouds", in the 5th century B.C.E. STREPSIADES: But by the Earth! is our father, Zeus, the Olympian, not a god? SOCRATES: Zeus! what Zeus! Are you mad? There is no Zeus. STREPSIADS: What are you saying now? Who causes the rain to fall? Answer me that1 SOCRATES: Why, these, and I will prove it. Have you ever seen it raining without cloud…

This segment from "The Clouds" nicely illustrates the mockery which a person who observes and rethinks the nature scientifically receives from the religious people, who only trust the dogma.

It's obvious that only Socrates here claims that the rain comes from clouds, or that the thunder is the result of the discharge, and gets mocked for that.

Even today very much alive.

From the other sources we know that Socrates was then accused "corrupting the youth of the city-state and asebeia (impiety) against the pantheon of Athens" and that he was for that crime sentenced to death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates

That's why Platon decided to only philosophise about the "ideas" and not to discuss or analyze the nature phenomena. He didn't want to end like Socrates.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#202

Post by acqq »

ashirus wrote: post #177
acqq wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not true that "the church at the time based their understanding of the physical universe primarily on Aristotle." We talk about the religious view. For the religious view the Bible was actually relevant for the Church: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament " Augustine wrote that too much learning had been expended on the nature of the firmament.[9] "We may understand this name as given to indicate not it…

That section of the Jewish Encyclopaedia is itself unsourced and, to the best of my knowledge in Jewish cosmology, was not actually Jewish view of the cosmos.

Please give your citations for the relevant Jewish cosmology at the time the "creation myths" were made.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#203

Post by nurettin »

hueving wrote: post #198
nurettin wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we are obviously typing about Aristotle, so you seem to be wrong.

The person you are replying to was pointing out that we don't talk about ordinary humans today to contradict the GP. So you echo the point and then say he/she is wrong?

Just making a point doesn't make it true. Namely, Aristotle could fall into a certain definition of an ordinary person and still be talked about until sun fades away. And you could be an extraordinary person and be forgotten one decade after you die. Just because society deems you something doesn't mean you are that.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#204

Post by baldfat »

gumby wrote: post #160
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…

Aristotle was always such an obvious idiot ("women have fewer teeth than men" is my favorite nonsense) I have always+ wondered why anyone paid attention to him, ever. + Well since I was a teenager anyway

Don't judge people of history based on today's principles. They are remembered in history for significant reasons and you'll miss out on learning from them. (Unless they are famous for just death, destruction and lack of morals and ethics AKA most Roman Emperors. In the case of Caligula he was insane. But the rest enjoy.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#205

Post by baldfat »

camelNotation wrote: post #136
milcron wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the pre-Crusades 'dark ages', Europeans were by-and-large ignorant of Aristotle. Christianity was popular, and the philosophic framework was predominantly Neo-Platonic. Fortunately, Aristotle's work was preserved and commented upon by Islamic scholars. Averroes and Avicenna are two important Islamic scholars who commented on Aristotle. After the Crusades, this was reintroduced to the West. As Aristotelianism was r…

The legend of early Islamic scholars "preserving human knowledge through the dark ages" is extremely overdone. Eastern Christendom fleeing the encroachment of Islamic invaders (which is largely what reintroduced Aristotle to the West, not Islam) had grappled with the conflict between Platonic and Aristotelian theological influences for centuries prior to the Crusades. The dispute between Gregory Palamas and Barlaam o…

It wasn't a legend or a myth, but also there was no "Dark Age." It also wasn't preserving knowledge it was actually spreading and fusing knowledge during the "Islamic Golden Age." http://www.storyofmathematics.com/islamic.html

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#206

Post by joeclark77 »

analog31 wrote: post #190
ekianjo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excommunication is not the same thing as heresy.

As I understand it (lapsed Catholic), there are two senses to excommunication. In one sense, it means that you are ineligible to receive the sacraments, and if you do receive them, they are invalid. This would be the case for someone with un-confessed sins, including heresy, or using birth control for that matter. In another sense, it is the formal finding of excommunication by the church authorities. That's where a…

People who are formally excommunicated aren't banished from society; in fact, they're not even allowed to skip Mass.

The first type of excommunication you're talking about is the automatic kind. If you commit grave (not venial) sins and haven't been to confession yet, you cannot receive Communion without committing a sacrilege. No formal decree from the bishop is necessary for this. In fact, no one even needs to know you committed a sin, for you to be in this state.

A formal excommunication is a public announcement intended to shame a sinner into amending his life and re-entering a state of grace by repentance and confession. I believe in some cases it requires a public act by the sinner, to let the community know that the public charge of excommunication has been answered. So, to contradict your position, a public excommunication is not a shunning but rather is meant to bring the sinner back into the community.

It might be a useful practice for the Church to do more of...

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#207

Post by omarchowdhury »

nurettin wrote: post #203
hueving wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you are replying to was pointing out that we don't talk about ordinary humans today to contradict the GP. So you echo the point and then say he/she is wrong?

Just making a point doesn't make it true. Namely, Aristotle could fall into a certain definition of an ordinary person and still be talked about until sun fades away. And you could be an extraordinary person and be forgotten one decade after you die. Just because society deems you something doesn't mean you are that.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#208

Post by acqq »

baldfat wrote: post #205
camelNotation wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legend of early Islamic scholars "preserving human knowledge through the dark ages" is extremely overdone. Eastern Christendom fleeing the encroachment of Islamic invaders (which is largely what reintroduced Aristotle to the West, not Islam) had grappled with the conflict between Platonic and Aristotelian theological influences for centuries prior to the Crusades. The dispute between Gregory Palamas and Barlaam o…

It wasn't a legend or a myth, but also there was no "Dark Age." It also wasn't preserving knowledge it was actually spreading and fusing knowledge during the "Islamic Golden Age." http://www.storyofmathematics.com/islamic.html

Note how "unislamic" (compared to the later stricter views) that so-called "Golden Age" was:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom

Richly illustrated. Versus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam

"For many years, Wahhabi clerics opposed the establishment of a television service in Saudi Arabia, as they believed it immoral to produce images of humans.[19] The introduction of television in 1965 offended some Saudis,[20] and one of King Faisal's nephews, Prince Khalid ibn Musa'id ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz,[21] was killed in a police shootout in August 1965 after he led an assault on one of the new television stations.[20]"

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#209

Post by mannykannot »

jkot wrote: post #4

Earth-Centric model was actually scientifically better at that time. With Occam's razor you would prefer it. - Even church agreed that Earth is not static, but is rotating. - Nobody observed star parallax, major proof for Copernican model was missing until 19th century. - Ptolemaic model with its epicycles provided better predictions. - Copernican model is also wrong, planets are orbiting around center of gravity, wh…

What the church believed is neither here nor there.

Failure to observe stellar parallax is not scientific evidence for geocentricity, as there is an explanation, obvious to anyone who understands parallax (and, as it happens, correct), for the non-observation. Consequently, Occam's razor (which is a methodological assumption, not an axiom of either logic or the scientific method) does not apply.

Kepler had fixed the prediction issue.

I do not believe the center-of-gravity issue was considered at that time, and if not, could not be a reason for preferring geocentricity at that time (and by the time it was recognized, geocentricity was already scientifically untenable.)

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#210

Post by ekm2 »

gumby wrote: post #160
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…

Aristotle was always such an obvious idiot ("women have fewer teeth than men" is my favorite nonsense) I have always+ wondered why anyone paid attention to him, ever. + Well since I was a teenager anyway

Most mathematical minds prefer Plato.Verbal types adore Aristotle.
Post reply on HN