Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
posted by chromas on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:41PM   Printer-friendly

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This discussion has been archived.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.
  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:20PM (1 child)

    by Bot (3902) 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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.

    This sig for rent.