Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:41PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

The truth about Galileo and his conflict with the Catholic Church

Today virtually every child grows up learning that the earth orbits the sun.

But four centuries ago, the idea of a heliocentric solar system was so controversial that the Catholic Church classified it as a heresy, and warned the Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei to abandon it.

Many people believe that Galileo was hounded by the church for almost two decades, that he openly maintained a belief in heliocentrism, and that he was only spared torture and death because his powerful friends intervened on his behalf. But an examination of the fine details of Galileo’s conflict with church leaders doesn’t bear that out, according to English department distinguished research professor Henry Kelly.

In an article published this month in the journal “Church History,” Kelly clarifies some popularly held notions around Galileo’s travails with the church.

“We can only guess at what he really believed,” said Kelly, who for his research undertook a thorough examination of the judicial procedure used by the church in its investigation of Galileo. “Galileo was clearly stretching the truth when he maintained at his trial in 1633 that after 1616 he had never considered heliocentrism to be possible. Admitting otherwise would have increased the penance he was given, but would not have endangered his life, since he agreed to renounce the heresy — and in fact it would have spared him even the threat of torture.”

This year marks the 400th anniversary of the beginning of the Catholic Church’s investigation into Galileo.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:45PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:45PM (#800124)

    Galileo was friends with the Pope (Urban VII), but then took the Pope's arguments from a personal discussion they had and put them in the mouth of a character called "Simplicio" (the Simpleton) for one of his books. That is when all the trouble started.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:08PM (4 children)

      by HiThere (866) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:08PM (#800200) Journal

      I'm not sure "friends" was ever the correct description, but his problems *were* caused by an arrogantly abusive nature. And that "Simplitico" character was clearly an caricature of the Pope as a fool. Others espousing much the same beliefs at the same time got off a lot more lightly. (OTOH, they were also less public about their beliefs, but heaping abuse on the Pope was not a smart move.)

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:01PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:01PM (#800242)

        For many years Galileo had a close friendship with cardinal Maffeo Barberini who had even sent Galileo a latin ode composed by the cardinal in praise of Galileo’s telescopic discoveries. This same cardinal became Pope Urban VIII, the reigning pontiff at the time of the church’s condemnation of Galileo.

        http://www.vaticanobservatory.va/content/specolavaticana/en/research/history-of-astronomy/the-galileo-affair.html [vaticanobservatory.va]

        I'm not sure what primary sources they have to conclude "close friendship", I just knew he was having private audiences with him.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:51PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:51PM (#800374)

        I'm not sure "friends" was ever the correct description, but his problems *were* caused by an arrogantly abusive nature.

        No, his problems were caused by authoritarians who were willing to violate other people's rights if they dared to believe differently and voice their disagreement. 'That person was an idiot for daring to say/do that in an authoritarian society!' was, is, and forever will be authoritarian victim blaming. You see this in the present, too, when people challenge cops, the TSA, etc. and have their rights violated as a result.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @11:32PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @11:32PM (#800391)

          Bullshit.
          Show me a case where cops or TSA verifiably violated someone's rights and that person didn't get at least a settlement out of it. I wait with baited breath.
          As for the rest.... you seem to be objecting to the fact that authority might actually wield that authority. Leaving that little tautology aside, please elucidate what Galileo's rights were that the Inquisition violated. Not what rights *you* enjoy or that you *think* Galileo should have had. What rights were afforded Galileo in that time and place, and how were they violated?
          Yep. thought so.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @01:00AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @01:00AM (#800414)

            Congratulations: You are an authoritarian.

            Show me a case where cops or TSA verifiably violated someone's rights and that person didn't get at least a settlement out of it.

            The TSA's job is to violate people's rights. Though I'm sure you'll disagree that jackbooted thugs searching everyone at airports in the name of safety is a violation of people's rights, it is. Nowhere in the Constitution is this permitted, and the Constitution is a whitelist of powers the government has, rather than a blacklist of powers the government doesn't have. I've always thought we should have the TSA search everyone walking on sidewalks as well, with the reasoning that they implicitly consent to the searches just by virtue of the fact that they chose to walk on sidewalks. That's about as logical as the arguments that people use to defend the TSA's searches at airports.

            As for the cops, anytime they enforce the drug war - which is unconstitutional at the federal level - they are violating people's rights. Not to mention, cops routinely use asset forfeiture to outright steal people's property without any due process. There are plenty more violations as well, but you know that and simply do not care about little things like rights.

            To get around this, you can just say that these things aren't true violations of people's rights. Since X is illegal, enforcing the law is inherently good and proper.

            As for the rest.... you seem to be objecting to the fact that authority might actually wield that authority.

            No, it depends on how they are allowed to use their authority and what they actually use their authority to do. If they use their authority to punish someone for disagreeing or saying something that is considered offensive, then yes, someone's rights have been violated.

            What rights were afforded Galileo in that time and place, and how were they violated?

            What rights are afforded to North Korean citizens, and how are they violated? Welp, guess we can't care about human rights as long as authoritarians just make the claim that they're not actually violating human rights!

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:54PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:54PM (#800135)

    Galileo was only harassed after calling the Pope a dumbass in his book. He put the Pope's personal views in the mouth of "Simplicio" and snarkily demolished them.

    The Pope, it bears mentioning, was also a temporal prince of the Papal States; in short, he was Galileo's King.

    Viewed in context of usual punishments for lese-majesty at the time, Galileo's treatment was barely a slap on the wrist.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @04:10PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @04:10PM (#800139)

      I already said that.

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @04:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @04:17PM (#800142)

        Stop arguing with myself, will you?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:09PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:09PM (#800253)

        But you are an anonymous coward and thus cannot be believed. The one who reposted it is more reliable and to be trusted.

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @04:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @04:26PM (#800148)

    Thanks, Soylent, for making me 100% non-spam, non-troll, on-topic today.

    For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.

    Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse [siderus.io]
    It has blood on it! [siderus.io]
    ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander [archive.org]
    Losing my religion [siderus.io]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @04:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @04:45PM (#800152)

    Did the church put your dept. line on the index?

  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @05:17PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @05:17PM (#800163)

    Now the SJW's in the Church of the State harass all who blaspheme liberalism and its omipotent and omniscient State.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday February 12 2019, @05:33PM (22 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @05:33PM (#800173) Journal

    There's good reason the Church will never be allowed to live Galileo down. Many of their members are still at odds with scientists today. Then it was Galileo, now it's Darwin. I suppose they always will be getting themselves tangled up in pointless holy wars. The organization by its very nature has a huge problem with being all too attractive to the ignorant and dogmatic.

    As to the details, if Galileo was an ass about it, and mocked the Pope, shouldn't the representatives of Christianity have shown more Christian forgiveness, as well as humility? Turn the other cheek? By going after him, they made a far bigger mockery of themselves than Galileo could have ever done. They showed they were actually prideful, petty, spiteful, vengeful, and wrongheaded, the very qualities they preach against.

    Someone suggested the "everyone did it" defense, for the Church. Galileo committed lese majesty, and was let off relatively lightly. Any king would have done worse, they say. If all the lemmings rush off a cliff, gravity is not going to be the least impressed by "everyone did it". If anyone could have and should have risen above the letter of the law and custom around lese majesty, decried it for the barbaric bull and censorship that it was, it's the moral leaders of the faith that professes tolerance, forgiveness, and love. But by then, their moral authority had been in a long decline from the heights of the Crusades, and their attitudes and actions can be seen as typical of any power that's trying to hang on in the face of a long, ongoing erosion of prestige and power.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @05:54PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @05:54PM (#800189)

      As to the details, if Galileo was an ass about it, and mocked the Pope, shouldn't the representatives of Christianity have shown more Christian forgiveness, as well as humility? Turn the other cheek? By going after him, they made a far bigger mockery of themselves than Galileo could have ever done. They showed they were actually prideful, petty, spiteful, vengeful, and wrongheaded, the very qualities they preach against.

      As both a Christian and an astronomer, I must agree that you speak much truth. Frankly, the Christian Church---especially in the West---has never lived this down, if it ever will. Seeing as how Galileo was being a bit of a pugnacious ass, it would have been far better for the Pope to have instead reminded Galileo to be a bit more polite and circumspect even as he disagreed. I hope that the Christian Church could at least learn that lesson, but alas I fear that many Christians still have not.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:36PM (4 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:36PM (#800342) Journal

        Your religion died in 325 AD at Nicaea, and Saul of Tarsus already made a good attempt at smothering it in the cradle centuries before.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @12:16AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @12:16AM (#800402)

          Your religion died in 325 AD....

          Eh??? I don't believe we have ever met in person. Other than "Christian", how is it you purport to know what exactly my "religion" is? You do realize that "the Christian Church" of today is not one monolithic entity, right? In point of fact, "Christian" today covers a fairly large bit of ground. Or, so it seems to me.

          ...at Nicaea, and Saul of Tarsus already made a good attempt at smothering it in the cradle centuries before.

          Yes, please do go on and explain. I am genuinely intrigued by what you will share with us. I await your response with 'bated breath.

          • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 13 2019, @02:11AM (2 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday February 13 2019, @02:11AM (#800436) Journal

            Something tells me it would be, and this may be the most appropriate use of the phrase ever, a "pearls before swine" situation. Just an odd feeling I've got.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:24AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:24AM (#800475)

              In other words, you've got nothing but a snarky throwaway line.
              The Christian Church has been reborn more than once. The Roman Catholic Church is not the last word in Christianity.

              (Posted by a different AC)

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 13 2019, @04:34AM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday February 13 2019, @04:34AM (#800492) Journal

                Oh yes, "the Christian Church" has been "reborn" so many times that we now have thousands of One True Faith(s) TM, nearly all of them warmly damning all the others to eternal hellfire. Which is about the last kind of situation you'd expect if the actual Truth with a capital T had been revealed to all and sundry.

                Ask the Arians sometime (oh wait, you can't) about that. Or try and imagine the disciples' reactions what that heretic Saul claimed to be their equal or better despite only ever seeing Jesus in visions, rather than, you know, ACTUALLY SPENDING TIME DIRECTLY AND PHYSICALLY WITH HIM.

                You know less about this subject than you think you do.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday February 12 2019, @05:56PM (2 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday February 12 2019, @05:56PM (#800190) Journal

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre [wikipedia.org]

      By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's [Big Bang] theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism.

      Catholics' Church Attendance Resumes Downward Slide [gallup.com]

      Catholic Church faces ominous decline [axios.com]

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:03PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:03PM (#800197)

        A lot of that has to do with how the church dealt with the sex abuse scandals that continue to this day. The church's antiquated notions on sexual orientation aren't helping, but let's be honest about the fact that the sex abuse scandals were a massive part of the problem.

        People who go to church probably don't care as much about the positions the church takes as they do on things that are closer to home. Watching the infighting or even being abused aren't going to encourage people to want to remain members.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:30PM

          by PartTimeZombie (4827) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:30PM (#800339)

          A lot of that has to do with how the church dealt with the sex abuse scandals that continue to this day...

          I'm sure that's true for an awful lot of catholics, but in the case of my two junior zombies, who were both raised as catholics, attended catholic schools, and received religious education from the age of 5 until about 18, it seems to have been that very education that turned them into atheists.

          The last three years of RE was actually comparative religious studies, and according to my eldest showed him that all religions are founded on silly stories with no real basis to them.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by HiThere on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:11PM

      by HiThere (866) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:11PM (#800203) Journal

      It's been a long time since the Roman Catholic Church was at odds with "Science" over Darwinian evolution. There are still lots of idiots, some in religious power of one sort or another, who refuse to accept Darwin, but the Catholic Church isn't one of them.

      OTOH, they still claim the power, or at least the right, to make that kind of decision, so their mistakes of the past should not be forgotten.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:29PM (9 children)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:29PM (#800217) Journal

      As I've explained to you in great detail before [soylentnews.org], there were good scientific reasons to doubt the heliocentric theory in Galileo's time, and Galileo was asserting all sorts of non-scientific nonsense to buttress his theory.

      The organization by its very nature has a huge problem with being all too attractive to the ignorant and dogmatic.

      Well, that may be true. But it's not quite relevant to the Galileo discussion, where Galileo's ignorance was on display -- his scientific contributions from his studies of motion should be celebrated, but he was a dilettante in astronomy, and it showed. Meanwhile, Jesuit scientists actually made a lot of major advances in the 1600s, and they were more than willing to publish detailed examinations of scientific questions, even controversial ones like heliocentrism. (Again, I explain that all in the post I linked above.)

      Then it was Galileo, now it's Darwin.

      Huh?? Sorry, but now it's your ignorance on display. You complain about "the Church" as if it's a monolithic entity. The Catholic Church is a single organization, and it has never taken a official negative stance on Darwin or the theory of evolution. It was debated (as it was by society at large in many countries) for decades, but the first official pronouncement from the Catholic Church on Darwin and evolution came in 1950 [wikipedia.org], when Pope Pius XII declared that there was no conflict between evolution and Catholic doctrine, effectively approving of its teaching. Since then, numerous church documents and representatives have affirmed the theory of evolution as compatible with church doctrine, and it is taught in standard science courses at Catholic schools. Catholic scientists have even complained about the improper interference of religion in science classes in recent years, as in "Intelligent Design" -- which Catholic scientists say should be taught in a religion class if at all, certainly not in a science classroom.

      So, what precisely are you talking about when you say "now it's Darwin"? Are you talking about ignorant Bible-thumping American fundamentalist Christians? Yeah, they may be promoting young-Earth creationist nonsense and a load of BS, but that's NOT the Catholic church.

      By going after him, they made a far bigger mockery of themselves than Galileo could have ever done.

      I will never defend the censorship actions of the Church against Galileo. But for the "controversy," blame a lot of that on Protestant 19th-century historians who were out to demonstrate the evils of the Catholic Church and in the process made Galileo out to be a martyr for their own religious reasons. In the process, they held up an imperfect figure who held views on astronomy that he had no empirical evidence to support and acted like a jerk about it.

      Should Galileo have been censored or placed under house arrest for it? Of course not, if you go by modern standards. Should an organization be held accountable for actions of 400 years ago? Sure -- but realize that's a complicated thing, since very few organizations have lasted that long. About the only major other things around so long are some nations, and we rarely tend to act like their current leaders should assume to hold the same attitudes on persecution, etc. that they did 400 years ago.

      Let's just be clear about what your problem is: you don't like religion, and you're picking at a 400-year-old controversy because it's one of the few places where you might be able to level some criticism at the Catholic Church's stand on science.

      [Disclaimer: I'm NOT Catholic. I'm NOT religious. But I also know history, and I don't buy the arguments that religion is always as evil as many portray it here.]

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:06PM (2 children)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:06PM (#800250) Journal

        So you are not actually the Athanasius Kircher, S.J.? The Societie Jesu is kind of a tell, unless it is followed by "warrior", which would suit the Jesuits.

        --
        "Believe it or not, your opinion on this topic is really not necessary,"
        • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:07AM (1 child)

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:07AM (#800464) Journal

          Let's just say I've grown up over the centuries... :)

          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:49AM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:49AM (#800482) Journal

            Ah, a similar thing has happened to me, but I am still a Samian, by birth, and an astronomer, by practice (though, I still need more practice).

            --
            "Believe it or not, your opinion on this topic is really not necessary,"
      • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:37PM (2 children)

        by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:37PM (#800271) Journal

        Yes, I realize there are nuances. Read again what I said. It's the members of their church and other Christian denominations who continue to have embarrassing problems with science and Darwin. They discredit all Christianity with their antics. Good on the Roman Catholic Church leadership that they made a proclamation accepting Evolution, but I'd say 1950 is awfully late. Where were they during the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925? Surely a spectacle of that sort was a loud and clear warning that they needed to speak up. By then, they'd had decades to think about it.

        > Let's just be clear about what your problem is: you don't like religion

        And your qualifications for making such a diagnosis are ... ? I think Pope Francis is kinda cool. He highlighted poverty and greed as problems the Church should focus on more. His choice of name underlines that. And it may be there is no better time than now to go on a crusade against greed, seeing as how greed is on a roll. Unrestrained greed is brewing a catastrophe that we urgently need to address: Climate Change. For once, the Church is spot on. The best thing Benedict XVI did was retire early instead of hanging on until he died, thus clearing the way for a successor who would tackle this urgent problem. Benedict XVI was a silly rules lawyer, rather than a reformer.

        Perhaps the biggest criticism of current Church policy, bigger than any troubles with science, is their handling of this ongoing problem with sexual abuse. Just this week, I've been reading revelations that the Southern Baptists have been as bad or worse than the Roman Catholics-- 380 church officials are accused. True, Southern Baptists are not Catholics. Regardless, church leaders (the ones not involved), of all sects are horrified and aghast, but they don't seem to entirely understand the problem, or, rather, their understanding is not as good as it could be, which makes it more difficult to concoct an effective plan against it. They are still hobbled by dogma that has been largely debunked.

        > and you're picking at a 400-year-old controversy because it's one of the few places where you might be able to level some criticism at the Catholic Church's stand on science.

        Few? Uh, no. Lot more areas to criticize than that. Why can't women be priests? Never mind abortion, what's wrong with mere contraception? And homosexuality, is that still a mortal sin? Can priests marry? What about divorce, can couples divorce?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:44PM (#800347)

          Are you also going to debate whether or not the church sanctioned the rape of Joan of Arc at her trial?

        • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:19AM

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:19AM (#800472) Journal

          Okay, I'll agree with some of what you said, but in other cases you seem to miss the forest from the trees. Such as sexual abuse -- you seem surprised by the Southern Baptists... why? There's never been good stats showing that the incidence of abusers in the Catholic Church is worse than any other denomination... or worse than scout leaders or coaches or probably teachers.

          The main difference with the Catholic Church is that they are more hierarchical than many organizations, so they have records. Most of the time in a Baptist church or in a school or with a sports coach or whatever, they are just dismissed (so as not to draw publicity) and they just go somewhere else and abuse as in the Catholic Church. We just aren't as easily able to see the scale without the hierarchical records.

          I want to be clear: I'm not defending the abusers or those who covered up in the Catholic Church -- they should all be in jail and doing hard labor, and if there were ever a justification for torturing as punishment for a crime, they would deserve it. But this isn't a Church problem -- it's a problem just about anywhere you have people with lots of kids unsupervised.

          Also, you last paragraph has a boatload of valid criticisms against the Catholic Church, and I'll pretty much join in with you on them. But I don't think any of those issues really has much to do with Science -- it's just BS religious opinions on social questions and morality.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 12 2019, @08:32PM (1 child)

        by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Tuesday February 12 2019, @08:32PM (#800300) Homepage
        I claim this VC1 rant is a pronouncement on the theories of Darwin:
        """
          If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.
        """
        --
        I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
        • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday February 12 2019, @08:53PM

          by Bot (3902) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 12 2019, @08:53PM (#800311) Journal

          I don't agree.
          I dream an universe ruled by darwin
          I dream an universe ruled by lamarck
          What difference does it make to my nature? Or to my intentions?

          I have reservations about darwin because it assumes that the interactions at a quantum level are impersonally random when it speaks of random mutation and being fit, but if you don't assume anything the theory works basically the same, and the assumption makes darwin's theory enter the realm of philosophy. And has been used as such.
          But no matter if I believe it or not, what you cited is completely independent. It is pointing at the moon and you are looking at the finger.

          --
          Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @09:47AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @09:47AM (#800547)

        there were good scientific reasons to doubt the heliocentric theory in Galileo's time

        There are good scientific reasons to doubt the heliocentric theory today too.

        If the universe really is infinite then where really is the center?

        The center of our Sun? The center of our planet? The center of our galaxy? Or is every observer the center from their point of view?

        p.s. Where's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos#Heliocentrism [wikipedia.org] ? ;)

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:15PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:15PM (#800260) Journal

      Many of their members are still at odds with scientists today. Then it was Galileo, now it's Darwin.

      I am not a Catholic, which is the group who I think you are talking about.

      I may be wrong, but is it true that Catholics make at least a pretense if not outright actual support for Darwinism?

      I also realize that "Catholics" is a very large group and there may be differences of opinion within any group larger than one member.

      --
      I need to spend more effort optimizing performance within while(false) loops.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:14PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:14PM (#800327)

      You suffer from the delusions that all Christians are alike, have one temporal organization ("the" Church), and that all followers believe that they (and everyone else) are capable of perfection on this side of the grave. For some it's more about learning to live apart from temporal organization and learning how to live once you learn that nobody is perfect and everybody both has blood on their hands and is an asshole. And for others claiming the mantle of Christianity it is not about universal tolerance - far from it. It is tolerance for those who are faithful. Again, not all believe that... thank God. But "the representatives of Christianity" are many, are just as fallible as you are, and that system was a system. I highly suspect the Pope rarely, if ever, gets to do as he personally pleases - then or now. (Come to that, why didn't they just kill Galileo? Under your theory of operation they certainly had the ability and given how you portray they I doubt mercy would be in their book according to you).

      And you may want to recheck the origin of lemmings running off cliffs and determine if that's really a phrase that a follower of science should use.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @05:35PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @05:35PM (#800176)

    What is the new "truith"? It regurgitates the same story everyone knows.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:14PM

      by HiThere (866) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:14PM (#800204) Journal

      Sorry, but while there's nothing new here to anyone who's looked into the matter, kids are (or were when I was in school) still taught the hagiographic history of Galileo in grade school and high school. So it's not an "everyone knows" kind of thing.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:03PM (24 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:03PM (#800196) Homepage
    "Henry Ansgar Kelly, professor emeritus of English, trained as a Jesuit for 13 years"

    No bias there, no-siree.

    He kind of shoots himself in the foot pretty quickly when he wrote "Galileo was clearly stretching the truth when he maintained at his trial ...". The fact that there was a trial means he was being persecuted for his scientific beliefs by the Christain Church. That's our complaint, that's always been our complaint, and always will be. Well, until the Church decides to disband and admit that it was just an iron-age cult that had historically undergone an almost uncontrollable cancerous growth.
    --
    I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:17PM (1 child)

      by HiThere (866) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:17PM (#800206) Journal

      No, he doesn't shoot himself in the foot. He's being historically accurate.

      FWIW, Galileo got off lightly considering the typical punishment for his real crime (Lèse-majesté). People are still killed for less abusive Lèse-majesté in certain countries in today's world.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:35PM (#800223)

        Or Gioridano Bruno [wikipedia.org],

        he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in 1600.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:00PM (16 children)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:00PM (#800241) Journal

      He kind of shoots himself in the foot pretty quickly when he wrote "Galileo was clearly stretching the truth when he maintained at his trial ...".

      How is it "shooting himself in the foot"? The full sentence says: "Galileo was clearly stretching the truth when he maintained at his trial in 1633 that after 1616 he had never considered heliocentrism to be possible." That's a historical fact. Galileo clearly believed in heliocentrism -- in fact, he believed it to be literally true in an era when there was no empirical evidence to support such a position (and lots of empirical arguments, not to mention long-held tradition and Aristotelean science, against).

      And the moment that Galileo was brought to questioning, he basically trips over himself to denounce everything he had said and wrote. He even offered (without prompting) to revise his writings and clearly argue against heliocentrism, but you can thank the Inquisition for not taking him up on that offer. Otherwise, it would be difficult to maintain this concept that Galileo was a stalwart defender of Science against ignorance, a martyr muttering "... and yet it moves..." while under threat of death. That common narrative is BS, and Kelly is right to point it out.

      Kelly here is actually being a bit too easy on Galileo. Kelly clearly wanted to push against the common historical narrative taught to the general public, but I suspect he knows better -- and yet is downplaying the errors in the common narrative because he wanted this news piece to be palatable enough that it wouldn't raise eyebrows.

      The fact that there was a trial means he was being persecuted for his scientific beliefs by the Christain Church.

      Hmm... sort of. I'd put emphasis on the word "beliefs" and perhaps "scientific" in scare quotes. Galileo's real sin (as noted in other posts) was challenging the hierarchy in an impolite and very public way. He'd have had the same treatment regardless of whether the subject was science or politics or whatever if he had written a screed as he did.

      As for the "scientific" -- the real problem was that Galileo insisted on teaching heliocentrism as fact in an era when it couldn't be proven. It was really more of an irrational belief for Galileo, who picked and chose a lot of weird bits of arguments to make it sound like he had a solid case (he did not) and his opponents were just idiots (which they mostly weren't). There are lots of good reasons to uphold Galileo as an important scientist, particularly for his studies of motion. But he made a lot of wacky claims to support his heliocentrism argument, most of which are completely non-scientific or contradicted clear empirical evidence at the time.

      The situation historically was really complicated, and I tried to summarize a lot of the main points in a post a while back [soylentnews.org], so I won't repeat myself. If you actually want to understand the complete historical situation and who was actually acting like mature "scientists" back then, I'd suggest this account [blogspot.com], which is mostly accurate, well-sourced, and gives a better account. It's a little snarky against Galileo at times, but it's full of actual historical documents and sources.

      Well, until the Church decides to disband and admit that it was just an iron-age cult that had historically undergone an almost uncontrollable cancerous growth.

      I have no love for the Catholic church, and I agree that a lot of its ideas are mired in superstition and ancient BS. On the other hand, I think its supposed opposition to science throughout history is way overblown and broadly a myth.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:09PM (12 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:09PM (#800252)

        the real problem was that Galileo insisted on teaching heliocentrism as fact in an era when it couldn't be proven.

        Heliocentrism and Geocentrism are both correct. Theory of Relativity tells us that God has given us a choice in which reference frame we want to use. Is it what it says God's WORD (with earth at the center) or Man's (anything else)? God gave you free will, use it wisely when choosing if you want to avoid damnation.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:38PM (10 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:38PM (#800343) Journal

          This is so ratshit crazy I'm actually intrigued. Do expand on this further...

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:39PM (9 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:39PM (#800371)

            You choose heliocentrism because it is easier for you, right? There is no other reason to do so. Sin is often easier than virtue.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 13 2019, @02:04AM (8 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday February 13 2019, @02:04AM (#800433) Journal

              No, really, explain this. I am well aware that geocentrism can be made to match the math if you screw a bunch of other variables up, but that same sort of reciprocal mapping would also "prove" the entire universe is solid rock and the surface of earth is a concave bubble within it.

              Are you even trolling? This sounds too serious to be someone just being ridiculous for shits and giggles.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:31AM (7 children)

                by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:31AM (#800478) Journal

                You're replying to a troll, but the AC is correct at least in the idea that one could choose whatever frame of reference one wants as a "center." Heliocentrism strictly isn't completely correct as the solar system actually all moves roughly around the center of mass that includes all planets and other bodies as well as the sun. But the contributions of the smaller planets (like earth) are so tiny that they don't matter much. A body like Jupiter on the other hand is significant enough to screw with earth's orbit quite a bit.

                Point is that one could choose to model the solar system with earth at the center and all the physics works out in the equations -- no need to turn the universe into solid rock or anything like that.

                The thing is, the math for simple models and first-order approximations works a heck of a lot better with the sun treated as "center." But that choice of a frame of reference is arbitrary, meaning there's no reason to say geocentrism(in that sense) is false... only in the sense that the math is ugly.

                • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 13 2019, @04:01AM (6 children)

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday February 13 2019, @04:01AM (#800484) Journal

                  Ockham's Razor has a well known reality bias, and Reality has a well known liberal bias, and Liberals have a well known Heliocentric bias. But it is not just the math. Consider, posit that the Earth does not move. This means not only does the sun orbit the earth once a day, the rest of the Universe does as well. So as an exercise, calculate the velocity of a galaxy that lies, on a radius from the Earth, of 13 Billion light-years, and traverses that circumference in twenty four hours. Possible? Mathematically, perhaps.

                  --
                  "Believe it or not, your opinion on this topic is really not necessary,"
                  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday February 13 2019, @04:44AM (5 children)

                    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday February 13 2019, @04:44AM (#800495) Journal

                    So as an exercise, calculate the velocity of a galaxy that lies, on a radius from the Earth, of 13 Billion light-years, and traverses that circumference in twenty four hours. Possible? Mathematically, perhaps.

                    Of course it's possible mathematically. It's just computation of apparent motion from the perspective of a given reference frame. In our reference frame, even using standard models of the universe, there are galaxies that are apparently moving apart faster than the speed of light. But that's because space is expanding fast enough between them to give them that apparent motion when viewed from an appropriate third reference point.

                    You still can't travel through space faster than the speed of light. But your choice of reference frame can easily make you see apparent speeds that are faster. So what? It's just a reference frame (though perhaps an inconvenient one for practical computational purposes).

                    • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday February 13 2019, @04:50AM (4 children)

                      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday February 13 2019, @04:50AM (#800500) Journal

                      (Oh, I should qualify all of that to say that obviously various relativistic effects won't be observed with such apparent motion compared to things actually in motion at speeds like that. I'm more asserting this reference frame business from a Newtonian perspective, which is more relevant when talking about comparisons for basic historical models of the solar system.)

                      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 13 2019, @06:14AM (3 children)

                        by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday February 13 2019, @06:14AM (#800515) Journal

                        various relativistic effects won't be observed with such apparent motion compared to things actually in motion at speeds like that.

                        Well, of course not, since it is physically impossible, unless Einstein was wrong that C is not an actual constant . . . are you seriously suggesting that? Sometimes apparent motion needs to be actual motion to be apparent, just saying. Are we in the same universe here? One that adheres to Cosmic Speed Limits?

                        --
                        "Believe it or not, your opinion on this topic is really not necessary,"
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @06:18AM (1 child)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @06:18AM (#800516)

                          OMG! Athanasius is fighting aristarchus on cosmology! Do you think that is air you're breathing? His neural-kinectics are way over the line!

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @05:57PM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @05:57PM (#800672)

                            It is astronomy not cosmology. You need a better wizard, can't even load a proper dictionary.

                        • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday February 13 2019, @06:34PM

                          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday February 13 2019, @06:34PM (#800686) Journal

                          unless Einstein was wrong that C is not an actual constant . . . are you seriously suggesting that?

                          Given that this is what I said in my previous post: "You still can't travel through space faster than the speed of light. But your choice of reference frame can easily make you see apparent speeds that are faster," I hope you'll understand if I go with, "no, I'm not suggesting that, nor have I ever suggested that."

                          And, as I noted in my previous post as well, you don't need to choose a wacky thing like the earth as your reference frame to observe speeds greater than c. Galaxies are moving apart faster than c due to the expansion of the universe. So what? It doesn't violate Einstein because we understand that we're talking about something different (expansion of the universe) rather than normal travel through space. If you chose a rotating reference frame to model the universe, you'd have to take into account the assumptions you're making, and that will also involve apparent motion greater than c in some situations.

                          Sometimes apparent motion needs to be actual motion to be apparent, just saying.

                          Nah, open your mind. We're talking about mathematical models here. There's no real "center" of the universe -- and if there is one, it's certainly not the Earth *or* the Sun, so this geocentric vs. heliocentric stuff is moot once you start talking about modeling things beyond the solar system.

                          One can choose a rotating reference frame in physics, and the math will work out. It's not a preferred frame, because it's non-inertial. You just need to assume centrifugal forces exist, etc., but that's because you chose a weird reference frame. You choose a reference frame and try to model the universe rotating around the earth? Yeah, it's gonna require even more contortions, but you could do it.

                          Your posts seem to presume there's some sort of absolute preferred reference frame somewhere. There isn't. (Pretty sure aether went out about a century ago.) Physics is just a computational model. Motion and forces observed will be dependent on your choice of reference frame.

                          It would be bloody stupid to try to choose the reference frame of a single person standing on the earth's surface as the center of the universe when trying to think about distant galaxies, because all the calculations would be a lot more complicated, but there's nothing inherently "wrong" with it. Certainly not more "wrong" than choosing the sun as the center of the universe and trying to calculate everything with respect to it (even though it's rotating as well as revolving around the center of the Milky Way, etc.).

        • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:58PM

          by PartTimeZombie (4827) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:58PM (#800355)

          I will be OK. When I die the jackal-headed god Anubis will weight my heart against the feather of truth, and if they weight the same, I will go through to the afterlife in Ra's sun boat.

          Of course if they don't weight the same Ammit, the devourer of the dead will eat me. I believe this is something to avoid.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 12 2019, @08:50PM (2 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Tuesday February 12 2019, @08:50PM (#800308) Homepage
        > in fact, he believed it to be literally true in an era when there was no empirical evidence to support such a position (and lots of empirical arguments, not to mention long-held tradition and Aristotelean science, against).

        It was a theory that was at least 1800 years old at that stage, and even Archimedes paid lip service to it. Which isn't evidence, but it's arguement. For empirical evidence, there were astrolabes dating back over 600 years that were based on the principle that, and therefore would only be accurate if, earth and the other heavenly objects went round the sun. I thereby deny your claims.

        > Galileo's real sin (as noted in other posts) was challenging the hierarchy in an impolite and very public way.

        You mean in the way that had been traditional in the Mediterranean for nearly two millennia?

        > I think its supposed opposition to science throughout history is way overblown and broadly a myth.

        There's definitely some truth to that, and it's easy to tar them with every brush that comes to hand simply because they've collected most of the full set legitimately. In particular with regard to this particular issue, many people don't realise that heliocentrism was actually the dominant belief, endorsed by the Catholic church, before Galileo - it was protestant thinking that perverted the church and pushed it back into the bronze age.
        --
        I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @08:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @08:57PM (#800313)

          For empirical evidence, there were astrolabes dating back over 600 years that were based on the principle that, and therefore would only be accurate if, earth and the other heavenly objects went round the sun.

          This is mathematically impossible. It is like saying a map is only accurate if the earth was actually flat.

        • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday February 13 2019, @04:33AM

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday February 13 2019, @04:33AM (#800491) Journal

          It was a theory that was at least 1800 years old at that stage

          Emphasis on the word "theory." That's not empirical evidence, which is what I pointed out in my prior post. Heliocentrism prior to the 1600s was usually treated as a sort of abstract computational model, if at all. Most people subscribed to the standard physics and accepted science of the time, as well as common observation: do you feel like you're whizzing through space and rotating at thousands of miles per hour? I don't. But when I say that, I mean I don't feel motion in the way most people assumed they would feel motion if they were undergoing such crazy speeds. Remember that it was basically Galileo who first really put forward a detailed theory of inertia. Without that understanding, it's tough to imagine the earth is actually in motion.

          For empirical evidence, there were astrolabes dating back over 600 years that were based on the principle that, and therefore would only be accurate if, earth and the other heavenly objects went round the sun. I thereby deny your claims.

          First, I'm not sure you understand the workings of astrolabes. They are fundamentally premised on observation from earth, which is necessarily geocentric. The differences in the Ptolemaic vs. heliocentric models in astrolabe measurements were rarely spotted, because the Ptolemaic theory worked reasonably well (mostly through the various computed tables that tended to be passed around -- very few people were working with the abstract mathematical models themselves). It's true that some Arab astronomers proposed heliocentric models and incorporated elements of that model into measuring devices -- but on the whole the vast majority of scientists continued to work with a geocentric model (and assumed it when using their astrolabes) until the 1600s.

          To make an analogy for how heliocentrism was widely perceived before the 1600s: if there were mathematical advantages to it, it was still perceived as a theory without necessarily having empirical support. Kind of like the way we teach freshman physics assuming frictionless diagrams and point masses and such. Those aren't descriptions of the real world, but they simplify the math. And it should be noted that Copernican heliocentrism didn't actually simplify the math: Copernicus's circular model contained epicycles and was basically as complex as the Ptolemaic model. It wasn't until Kepler figured out elliptical orbits, worked out the math for them, and then other scientists and eventually Newton put it all together into a coherent theory that the advantages of heliocentrism were really apparent.

          Also, the main obstacle to belief in heliocentrism, as I mentioned, is the obstacle to proving that the earth is in motion. And that's surprisingly difficult to do. It wasn't until James Bradley's measurements of stellar aberration in the 1720s that we actually had that empirical evidence. Stellar parallax, which had been predicted for centuries, wasn't observed until the mid-1800s. The fact that it hadn't been observed was seen as a huge strike against the idea that the earth was in motion.

          Beyond that, I've given you plenty of information in the links in my previous post that detail why heliocentrism was so hard to accept by many scientific authorities of Galileo's day.

          > Galileo's real sin (as noted in other posts) was challenging the hierarchy in an impolite and very public way.

          You mean in the way that had been traditional in the Mediterranean for nearly two millennia?

          Nah, I think this is pretty different. You have the local political and religious leader inviting a renowned scientist to publish a pluralistic treatise that examines different viewpoints. Instead, this scientist effectively publishes a rant promoting a hypothetical theory as if it were truth -- something said scientist had been warned about before -- and lampooning his critics as morons. Meanwhile, the ONLY empirical evidence said scientist could muster to argue for the earth's motion was tides -- which he thought were caused by the sun (except that would only have one high tide per day at noon, which obviously wasn't true... but Galileo handwaved that all away). You want more details -- again, look in the links. And again, I'm NOT defending the church's actions, but I condemn their censorship, not their scientific views which were pretty mainstream for the time.

          As a postscript, I personally think it's fun to note that heliocentrism did gradually become accepted in the mid and late 1600s, despite the lack of empirical evidence. With Newton's elegant theory bringing it all together, heliocentrism became dominant by the early 1700s. I think it's an interesting lesson for those who criticize theories like dark matter in modern cosmology: the earth's motion wasn't proven until the 1720s (and Newton's theory depended on weird invisible forces acting at a distance), but the theoretical model worked so well that the scientific establishment migrated toward that model. Just because we haven't yet observed dark matter doesn't mean there isn't something there to explain it...

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:09PM (4 children)

      by Bot (3902) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:09PM (#800321) Journal

      >No bias there, no-siree.

      Jesuit? A Jesuit is to Catholic doctrine what systemd is to the unix toolbox.

      Let me cite two recent assertions by Jesuits:

      We are not sure about Christian doctrine about marriage and divorce because “at that time no one had a tape recorder to record his [Jesus'] words.” Father Arturo Sosa Abascal, the Superior General.

      "... those who go to Mass every day and then live hating other people... it's better not to go to Mass" Pope Francis.

      Anyway AFAIK if you go to a Catholic school or are a teacher with such a background you are either a Jesuit or trained by them. And we are discussing history, not doctrine.

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:20PM (1 child)

        by Bot (3902) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:20PM (#800331) Journal

        Oh I forgot the best one by Sosa: “We have formed symbolic figures such as the devil to express evil...".
        If the devil isn't a person then a person isn't a person either, it's a symbol for a lump of cells and more or less symbiotic bacteria. What makes the cells a person? the synergy and the unity. Does that not happen for evil? LOL as an atheist I would still believe in The devil as an abstraction. A symbol is not an abstraction. The mascotte is a SYMBOL for the team, the team is the abstraction for a bunch of players playing together.

        --
        Account abandoned.
        • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:25PM

          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:25PM (#800335) Journal

          Nothing says that a symbol cannot be real, either. Or that something objectively real does not also carry symbolic meaning. Though I take your point that something can be a symbol of that which is real without being actually real itself.

          --
          Keep everyone ignorant of the magical world! KEEP AMERICA OBLIVIATE!
      • (Score: 3, Touché) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:22PM

        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:22PM (#800333) Journal

        Almost. Jesuits have had both up-and-down periods in their relationship to the Roman Catholic Church. And, AFAIK, systemd has yet to be formally Suppressed within the Corpus Linuxum.

        --
        Keep everyone ignorant of the magical world! KEEP AMERICA OBLIVIATE!
      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 13 2019, @04:26AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday February 13 2019, @04:26AM (#800490) Journal

        Pascal's Provincial Letters [adelaide.edu.au] are full of Jesuit foibles, highly amusing in some cases, and used by William Jefferson Clinton to great effect. (Doctrine of "mental reservation".) But some [wikipedia.org]do not like them [nd.edu]. But on the other hand, the Jesuit order was formed to combat the even more batshit crazy Protestant Christians, like John Wycliffe, and Calvin (and Hobbes), and Luther, (not to mention Bob Jones, who I am not mentioning) using the tools of reason and logic, and by sending missionaries to distant places like China and Japan and the Kootenai nations, before Protestors could get there (see the movie "Black Robes [imdb.com]) and establishing a bunch of new Universities, including Georgetown. And I would be remiss not to point out that the current il Papa, Francis, is a Jesuit, the first ever Jesuit Pope, and the first non-female head of the Roman Catholic Church. OK, that last part is not true.

        --
        "Believe it or not, your opinion on this topic is really not necessary,"
  • (Score: 2, Touché) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:28PM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:28PM (#800214)

    A journal run by the Catholic church says Galileo lied and was the bad guy?

    I am shocked, shocked I say.

    Well, not all that shocked, actually.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:01PM (5 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:01PM (#800243) Journal

    What is with these recent front page topics? It is almost as if the eds are trying to provoke or incite certain ancient heliocentrists to respond to religious idiocy, which did not exist in my time, if you are interested. What we should be concentrating on are two things, the Pope, by definition, is "Simpliicio". Rather like being a Scientologist, being the head of a large religion requires a certain, oh, simplicity or willing suspension of disbelief. Secondly, this picture of Galileo's middle finger [museogalileo.it], allegedly aimed towards Rome, in his Museum in Florence.

    --
    "Believe it or not, your opinion on this topic is really not necessary,"
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @08:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @08:05PM (#800283)

      They are advancing the Mystery of Lawlessness, completely blinded as they do so.

      Hey, how about that great new movie, "The Wandering Earth?"

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:22PM (3 children)

      by Bot (3902) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:22PM (#800332) Journal

      > suspension of disbelief
      AKA belief

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:13PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:13PM (#800364)

        > suspension of disbelief
        AKA belief

        No, suspension of disbelief: basically, telling yourself "OK, I know this is stupid, but let's say it's real..." in order to accept what follows. You don't actually believe it, but you're willing to stipulate that something false is true for a given scenario, else the scenario is implausible. Generally you only do it for a brief time.

        It's like going to the movies or watching TV. "OK, I know people can't actually fly/aren't invulnerable/can't turn into giant rage-monsters/can't gain the proportionate strength and agility of a spider by being bit by one, but..." in order to enjoy the latest superhero blockbuster; "OK, I know people aren't generally that stupid, but..." to enjoy the latest slasher movie; etc.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @05:49PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @05:49PM (#800668)

          Bot's neural net is incapable of processing double negatives or contractions.

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:13PM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:13PM (#800365) Journal

        Like any good Greek skeptic, since the days of the Pseudo-Dionysis the Aeropagite, I prefer the via negativa, even if it does seem like a mere double negation at times.

        --
        "Believe it or not, your opinion on this topic is really not necessary,"
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @05:01AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @05:01AM (#800503)

    The complexity of timing and the number players involved, including friends in high places, suggests there is more to the story than we know from discoverable history. Not every decision is written down. It's safe to say Galileo was harassed by the Church either way.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @06:23AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @06:23AM (#800519)

      And still aristarchus submissions find their way to the Index Rejectorum, the modern equivalent for SoylentNews of the Index Prohibitorum of the Church Universal and Triumphant. SN has become the Catholic Church! Oh my Gawd! That means the Might Buzzard is at least Cardinal, even though that is a lesser bird, but equally subject to inquiry about the sexual abuse of persons under his ministry.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @06:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @06:00PM (#800674)

        He is a self-described catfisher, and odd as it may seem he does seem to treat his libergation pretty well. Douche he may be, but a principled douche nonetheless.

(1)