Lower Nubia wrote:Indeed, Galileo was put under house arrest in 1633, which is quite important, because he published his letter on Sunspots in 1613, and these outlined his heliocentrism. In 1615 when the inquisition court was called against Galileo, it was the expert Jesuit judges, who ruled in favour of Galileo, that ended his first trial against him, even though it was clear he presented Heliocentric views. Indeed, his ideas went by without the bat of an eye, and indeed enjoyed support, Cardinal Barberini congratulated him on it, in fact. In 1623, the future Pope Urban VIII, who was a cardinal at this time, wrote in homage of Galileo in 1623(!) 10 years after his "heresy" was clearly known. Indeed, the problem was not that the idea itself was heretical, but to present it as beyond a mere hypothesis, was the real issue, indeed at the time there was no evidence of a Copernican system, not until the time of Johannes Keplar, and after his discovery the Church wasn't bothered. Copernicus' hypothesis was used in prior time by the Church, it was simply that it had to be maintained as just an hypothesis, unless evidence could be used to prove it, which eventually happened. With Galileo's tide experiments being incapable to support his hypothesis, there was no reason to believe Copernicus' modal any more than Brahe's modal. Yet, Galileo continued to mock his opponents and this created him a number of life long enemies, and eventually the Pope himself.
When the complaint to the inquisition was filed in 1615, it was actually rejected (thanks to the Jesuits), and indeed, Galileo continued to be a free man between 1613 to 1632, one has to wonder why he was given 20 years of down time for a "heresy" that was clearly identified in at least 1615 and published, himself, in 1613? One has to wonder. The problem with the idea that Galileo was executed for just his ideas is the huge inconsistency, if Galileo was producing this heresy, why wait? If his heresy was so clearly maligned by the church, why befriend him? Unless something latter in life, like his arrogance about his own convictions and his continued production of life-long enemies, began to present Galileo as prideful, rude, unreasonable and arrogant. Galileo eventually turned his friendship into hatred with Urban VIII, when he published his Dialogo, in this work he bi-passed the Papal censorship and put arguments which were very similar to Urban's arguments against Copernicus into the mouth of a character called Simplicio (literally meaning simpleton, and would be the equivalent of calling someone an idiot (or worse) today). Urban always suspected that Simplicio was a caricature of himself, though this wasn't Galileo's intention. Indeed Galileo is a classic example of poor timing, he would eventually be tried by Pope Urban VIII, a pope who would consistently fail in his papacy and was exceeding in nepotism. Indeed if anything the reason for this debacle can be laced with Urban, who as an individual Pope, caused a scientific stagnation of his own accord and will, by both his vanity and greed.
As further confirmation of my point, in 1655 observations were made in the Cathedral of Bologna by Giovanni Cassini to give concrete proof of Kepler's ideas. He showed that Kepler was right and Ptolemy was not. How could the Church see Copernican ideas as heretical but then supply a Cathedral to find evidence in support of it? It's quite clear that it was not Copernican theory itself that was heretical but that to claim it as fact without evidence was where the problem began, even here, however, it took poor circumstance as in Galileo's case to actually be convicted of 'heresy' for it.
Galileo went as far as to not present his discoveries to other scientists of the time, even to Johannes Kepler and believed he was the only one who could make valid discoveries. Quite clear is this fact that Galileo refused to give Kepler one of his telescopes, even though he gave them out to political entities. He ignored Kepler's works and wrote his treatise to Kepler in anagrams. Indeed, Galileo was not experimental in practice and made no critical experimental deduction to prove his hypothesis. The only reason we celebrate Galileo in this area is hindsight, not actual merit, because his attempts to prove Heliocentrism (not that he really tried to) were all failures, these achievements go to Kepler. When Cardinal Bellarmine was conducting the court of inquisition, asked Galileo for evidence to which Galileo refused and had no evidence. When Galileo eventually defended his ideas, he always defended with ideas which had been outdated by Kepler's research, indeed he defended his tides idea until the very end, even though this was clearly incapable as proof. When the Jesuit astronomer Grassi observed comets and claimed them as distant flying objects, Galileo's explanation that they were actually mere reflections of light caused people to abandon Fassi's hypothesis. A clear example of Galileo's distinct lack of respect for evidence.
When the day came for his final trial, Galileo did the utterly unthinkable, and contradicted himself numerous times, even after he was given time to prepare a defence. Galileo stated of his Dialogo that what it is believed to have been said, was actually the opposite, the idea that Dialogo was actual a refutation of Copernicus was clearly deceitful, the judge, and jury, new that Galileo was lying, but instead of showing this clearly by presenting his own letters and books against him, all the court did was require his signature for deposition. His defence of himself would stand in no trial. For he was clearly lying.
Also because I hate these irritating Wikipedia hyperlinks How about I play the game, shall we? Wait? Wikipedia saying something I've been saying for a while? No. That Copernican ideals were aactually fine, but that to present them as truth without evidence was wrong. say what?I think I have the sixth sense, because when I made that comment I knew they would say: Bruno! Bruno was a narcissistic nut case. He loved Hermetic Magic and which can be summed up as, well read it for yourself (it's utter nonsense) he also rejected the core Christian teachings and it is this that would get him finally executed. You present a false syllogism, Bruno held heretical doctrine (abandoned the trintiy, and christology), he also held Heliocentrism, he was executed, therefore, he was executed for his heliocentrism; classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Bruno also presented no evidence for his ideas, evidence which Kepler had began to accumulate in the early 1600's, Bruno's heresy's are what killed him, and Galileo's arrogance and poor timing that killed him. I'm sure I could find a list of Heliocentrist's which were hardly bothered between 1550 and 1642 and they all died of natural deaths for the time: plague, cholera, maybe old age, you'know the usual, but execution? Unlikely.
It is quite clear that Copernican ideas were controversial, but not in and of themselves heretical. That it was used by their detractors as a weapon to dispense with personal grudges, hatreds, and desires, as with Galileo. The idea that the Church persecuted the sciences of it's day? Lacking. The idea that Popes abused their position for power which caused scientific stagnation? Likely.
Lord Dominator wrote:Both are relevant, but here's also my earlier direct quotation from Wikipedia:Regarding Bruno from the Wikipedia article, underlining mine. I think the fourth underlining is perhaps the most important one here.Other scholars oppose such views, and claim Bruno's martyrdom to science to be exaggerated, or outright false. For Yates, while "nineteenth century liberals" were thrown "into ecstasies" over Bruno's Copernicanism, "Bruno pushes Copernicus' scientific work back into a prescientific stage, back into Hermetism, interpreting the Copernican diagram as a hieroglyph of divine mysteries."[57]
According to historian Mordechai Feingold, "Both admirers and critics of Giordano Bruno basically agree that he was pompous and arrogant, highly valuing his opinions and showing little patience with anyone who even mildly disagreed with him." Discussing Bruno's experience of rejection when he visited Oxford University, Feingold suggests that "it might have been Bruno's manner, his language and his self-assertiveness, rather than his ideas" that caused offence.[58]
Theological heresyEdit
In his Lectures on the History of Philosophy Hegel writes that Bruno's life represented "a bold rejection of all Catholic beliefs resting on mere authority."[59]
Alfonso Ingegno states that Bruno's philosophy "challenges the developments of the Reformation, calls into question the truth-value of the whole of Christianity, and claims that Christ perpetrated a deceit on mankind... Bruno suggests that we can now recognize the universal law which controls the perpetual becoming of all things in an infinite universe."[60] A. M. Paterson says that, while we no longer have a copy of the official papal condemnation of Bruno, his heresies included "the doctrine of the infinite universe and the innumerable worlds" and his beliefs "on the movement of the earth".[61]
Michael White notes that the Inquisition may have pursued Bruno early in his life on the basis of his opposition to Aristotle, interest in Arianism, reading of Erasmus, and possession of banned texts.[62] White considers that Bruno's later heresy was "multifaceted" and may have rested on his conception of infinite worlds. "This was perhaps the most dangerous notion of all... If other worlds existed with intelligent beings living there, did they too have their visitations? The idea was quite unthinkable."[62]
Frances Yates rejects what she describes as the "legend that Bruno was prosecuted as a philosophical thinker, was burned for his daring views on innumerable worlds or on the movement of the earth." Yates however writes that "the Church was... perfectly within its rights if it included philosophical points in its condemnation of Bruno's heresies" because "the philosophical points were quite inseparable from the heresies."[63]
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When [...] Bruno [...] was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology."[64]
I totally agree, the idea that Bruno was just some free thinker, who was swept up in the backwards dogmatism of the Church is mind numbing. The man was genuinely nuts, the people who like him would of found him utterly repugnant in this day and age, which only adds to the irony.
