Imposing their views

[ProfessorDavey]

Doesn't stop your ignorant idea of religion and the religious being a monolith being ignorant

Points which I never made - stop lying NS.

[ProfessorDavey]

Weirdly the Catholic Church was following Aristotle more than any religious doctrine here in part because of Aquinas's deification of the old Greek bugger.


Initially the Papes were ok with Copernicus, the nascent Prods not so much - looking at you Melanchthon!

So are you denying that:

1. The catholic church convicted Galileo on the basis that heliocentricity was heretical, not merely wrong or incomplete and
2. That the judgement aimed to actively silence those in favour of heliocentricity, e.g. by banning Galileo from writing or speaking about heliocentricity and by banning books by Kepler and Copernicus.

[jeremyp]

OK, so leaving aside epicycles which contradict the basic model of geocentrism, outline how it worked better.

But you can't leave aside the epicycles. They are intrinsic to both the Ptolemaic model and the Copernican model. Both models assume that the only kind of motion allowed is in perfect circles. Hence the need for epicycles because, in reality, the planets don't move in perfect circles.

Imagine you're an astronomer at the time of Copernicus. You've got your model of the Universe with Earth at the centre. Then Copernicus comes along and says I've got a new idea. It goes against received wisdom, is more complicated (has more epicycles) and isn't as accurate as the one you have already got. Are you going to leap in and accept the new idea? Of course not.

Copernicus was really only half way there. He needed Kepler's idea that planets move in ellipses.

[jeremyp]

Non-sense. Religions are organised structures with rules, processes etc etc. Sure there will be people implementing those rules and processes etc but the rules and processes themselves are part of, and 'owned' by the religious organisation not individual people. Indeed for religions (unlike many other organisations) there is a view that those rules, processes etc are divinely inspired so not even derived from people at all.

You might as well claim that:

Governments don't act. People do.
Courts don't act. People do.

etc

It is as well to remember that when governments make decisions or churches or courts, it is actually people - individual humans - that are really making the decisions. Catholic doctrine was created by humans.

And part of Galileo's problem is that he managed to insult the Pope publicly. That's why the trial went so badly for him.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is as well to remember that when governments make decisions or churches or courts, it is actually people - individual humans - that are really making the decisions. Catholic doctrine was created by humans.

But they are doing so not as individuals but on behalf of their organisation. And a decision taken by someone on behalf of their organisation may not be the same as that taken by the same person as a private individual. And while you and I certainly believe that catholic doctrine was created by humans I suspect the church and those within that hierarchy would have believed that doctrine was divinely created, with people merely the conduit for that doctrine rather than the creators themselves. 

And part of Galileo's problem is that he managed to insult the Pope publicly. That's why the trial went so badly for him.

Nonetheless the judgement was on the basis that heliocentricity was heretical (i.e. against doctrine). And Galileo wasn't the only person to be impacted by the catholic church's views on cosmology at the time. Kepler and Copernicus had their books banned and Giordano Bruno's (correct) views that stars were in fact other suns which might have planets was one element that lead to his trial, conviction and execution.

[ProfessorDavey]

Imagine you're an astronomer at the time of Copernicus. You've got your model of the Universe with Earth at the centre. Then Copernicus comes along and says I've got a new idea. It goes against received wisdom, is more complicated (has more epicycles) and isn't as accurate as the one you have already got. Are you going to leap in and accept the new idea? Of course not.

But that isn't why the catholic church rejected heliocentricity - they rejected it because it was, in their view, heresy.

[Nearly Sane]

But you can't leave aside the epicycles. They are intrinsic to both the Ptolemaic model and the Copernican model. Both models assume that the only kind of motion allowed is in perfect circles. Hence the need for epicycles because, in reality, the planets don't move in perfect circles.

Imagine you're an astronomer at the time of Copernicus. You've got your model of the Universe with Earth at the centre. Then Copernicus comes along and says I've got a new idea. It goes against received wisdom, is more complicated (has more epicycles) and isn't as accurate as the one you have already got. Are you going to leap in and accept the new idea? Of course not.

Copernicus was really only half way there. He needed Kepler's idea that planets move in ellipses.

The epicycles and the epicycles on epicycles were added on to cope with the inaccuracy in the basic concept, and they contradict the basic concept.

[Nearly Sane]

Non-sense. Religions are organised structures with rules, processes etc etc. Sure there will be people implementing those rules and processes etc but the rules and processes themselves are part of, and 'owned' by the religious organisation not individual people. Indeed for religions (unlike many other organisations) there is a view that those rules, processes etc are divinely inspired so not even derived from people at all.

You might as well claim that:

Governments don't act. People do.
Courts don't act. People do.

etc

and I would be right to do so. That you reify institutions as opposed to thinking of people is one of your many problems. In this case it leads you to missing that Copernicus was religious, and creating a simplistic us/them view.

[Nearly Sane]

But that isn't why the catholic church rejected heliocentricity - they rejected it because it was, in their view, heresy.

Again, you are being incredibly simplistic. Initially there were many in the RCC who were not bothered by Copernican thought. And much of Galileo's thought was ok for many but politics.... A faction saw it as problematic to the overall clarity of thought when fighting the 'evil' Protestanys, never mind that those same Protestants were virulently opposed to Copernicus until the RCC swivel.

[Nearly Sane]

For a 4 year pope, Paul IV's influence on the RCC is a shocking problem, and people miss that so much of that is political rather than doctrinal.

[ProfessorDavey]

That you reify institutions as opposed to thinking of people is one of your many problems.

Not at all - people often act in a different manner, making different decision when they are doing so on behalf of an organisation or institution than they might do as a private individual. Why? Because organisations have codes of conduct, ethos, rules etc that people need to adhere to when acting on behalf of that organisation.

So a doctor might be a personally racist, but the institution they work for will expect them to treat all patients equally regardless of race due to the organisational codes, ethos etc. And the flip side can be true - an organisation can be institutionally racist even if not one of the people in that organisation are themselves personally racist - because the organisation may retain processes etc that are racist and require their employees to follow those procedures.

In this case it leads you to missing that Copernicus was religious, and creating a simplistic us/them view.

Not at all - indeed I actually addressed this very point in reply 184.

That Copernicus was religious is irrelevant to whether the institution of the catholic church considered heliocentricity to be heretical (which they clearly did). It is as much nonsense as suggesting that the institution of the Met Police cannot be institutionally racist because there are black police officers.

[ProfessorDavey]

And much of Galileo's thought was ok for many but politics.... A faction saw it as problematic to the overall clarity of thought when fighting the 'evil' Protestanys, never mind that those same Protestants were virulently opposed to Copernicus until the RCC swivel.

So if a religious organisation determines that something is heresy - in other words against doctrine - how do you determine whether that is doctrinal or political?

[jeremyp]

But they are doing so not as individuals but on behalf of their organisation. And a decision taken by someone on behalf of their organisation may not be the same as that taken by the same person as a private individual. And while you and I certainly believe that catholic doctrine was created by humans I suspect the church and those within that hierarchy would have believed that doctrine was divinely created, with people merely the conduit for that doctrine rather than the creators themselves. 
Nonetheless the judgement was on the basis that heliocentricity was heretical (i.e. against doctrine). And Galileo wasn't the only person to be impacted by the catholic church's views on cosmology at the time. Kepler and Copernicus had their books banned and Giordano Bruno's (correct) views that stars were in fact other suns which might have planets was one element that lead to his trial, conviction and execution.

Actually, the Catholic Church was quite happy with a compromise position where the heliocentric system could be used as a scientific model but was not to be considered "The Truth". Then Galileo published a book that mocked the church and the pope at the time and this is what led to the clamp down, on him, at least. The Catholic Church went from being tolerant of heliocentrism to being dead against it. The reason for this is because the decisions were taken by human beings subject to the usual human frailties.

Bruno was not executed for his science: he was executed for his religious views.

[Nearly Sane]

Actually, the Catholic Church was quite happy with a compromise position where the heliocentric system could be used as a scientific model but was not to be considered "The Truth". Then Galileo published a book that mocked the church and the pope at the time and this is what led to the clamp down, on him, at least. The Catholic Church went from being tolerant of heliocentrism to being dead against it. The reason for this is because the decisions were taken by human beings subject to the usual human frailties.

Bruno was not executed for his science: he was executed for his religious views.

Yep, as a Bruno fan that goes to the statue every time I am in Rome and raises a glass, and I have other more personal reasons for the toast, it's a nonsense to suggest he was executed because his scientific views were a problem 

[jeremyp]

The epicycles and the epicycles on epicycles were added on to cope with the inaccuracy in the basic concept, and they contradict the basic concept.

Copernicus had epicycles on epicycles too. They were also added to cope with the inaccuracy in a basic concept - the one that said planetary motion is in perfect circles.

If you had been an astronomer of the time instead of a lay person living in an age where it is taken for granted that the Earth goes round the Sun, and you had to pick between the Copernican model and the Ptolemaic model, it would not have been obvious to you that Copernicus was right. People today tend to assume that, once Copernicus had the idea to put the Sun in the middle it was totally obvious and you'd have to be thick to disagree with him. This was not the case at all. It took Kepler and elliptical orbits and the evidence from Galileo's observations to make heliocentric the dominant hypothesis.

[ProfessorDavey]

Actually, the Catholic Church was quite happy with a compromise position where the heliocentric system could be used as a scientific model but was not to be considered "The Truth". Then Galileo published a book that mocked the church and the pope at the time and this is what led to the clamp down, on him, at least. The Catholic Church went from being tolerant of heliocentrism to being dead against it. The reason for this is because the decisions were taken by human beings subject to the usual human frailties.

But those people were operating within the institutional context of the catholic church, so I don't think it is right to claim these decisions to somehow be simply personal decisions. They weren't - they were decisions taken on behalf of the institution of the catholic church.

Bruno was not executed for his science: he was executed for his religious views.

That is one view - others are available, including a view that Bruno's opinions on cosmology were one of the reasons why he was tried and executed. You will note that I never said that his cosmology views were the only reason for his conviction and execution.

[Nearly Sane]

But those people were operating within the institutional context of the catholic church, so I don't think it is right to claim these decisions to somehow be simply personal decisions. They weren't - they were decisions taken on behalf of the institution of the catholic church.
That is one view - others are available, including a view that Bruno's opinions on cosmology were one of the reasons why he was tried and executed. You will note that I never said that his cosmology views were the only reason for his conviction and execution.

And thd institutions do not exist outside of people. Jeremyp is not suggesting there are not cultural influences rather that we have to understand that those exist but they are still from people. Again one of your many problems, and it is one a lit of atheists suffer from, is the idea that religion is not just a human invention but is somehow a uniquely bad thing beamed from the planet Theos.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yep, as a Bruno fan that goes to the statue every time I am in Rome and raises a glass, and I have other more personal reasons for the toast, it's a nonsense to suggest he was executed because his scientific views were a problem

I said it was one element - not that it was the only reason. Indeed there is a school of thought that this was the main reason - indeed there has been a recent book on the subject making that very case.

[ProfessorDavey]

And thd institutions do not exist outside of people.

And when acting on behalf of institutions people act within the context of that institution.

[jeremyp]

But those people were operating within the institutional context of the catholic church, so I don't think it is right to claim these decisions to somehow be simply personal decisions. They weren't - they were decisions taken on behalf of the institution of the catholic church.

Ha. You make it sound like people taking decisions on behalf of an institution do so without taking their own personal interests into account. Believe me they do.

That is one view - others are available, including a view that Bruno's opinions on cosmology were one of the reasons why he was tried and executed. You will note that I never said that his cosmology views were the only reason for his conviction and execution.

Most accounts I have read go with the idea that he was mainly convicted for his heretical views on such doctrines as the Trinity, the Virgin Marty, transubstantiation etc. If his science has any role, it is minor.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again one of your many problems, and it is one a lit of atheists suffer from, is the idea that religion is not just a human invention but is somehow a uniquely bad thing beamed from the planet Theos.

Blimey add 2 plus 2 and make ten thousand.

Show me exactly where in this thread, or indeed elsewhere, where I have implied that religion is uniquely bad.

On this thread the starting point was me challenging Vlad's view that 'Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant.'

My point was that there have been examples where religions have done exactly that - to suppress views, which are actually correct and backed up by evidence, that they felt went against doctrine and to persecute those making those views.

I did not say that all religions do this. Nor did I say that religions do this all the time. Nor did I say that all religious believers do this.

So stop misinterpreting what I said (and what I didn't say).

I, of course, accept that religions are invented by humans. I'm an atheist - why would I think otherwise. But then so are all other non-religious institutions - that does not mean that those institutions do not have their own structures, rules, processes, ethos etc that means that when people make decisions within the context of that institution they may not make the same decision as they would do if it was a purely private matter.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ha. You make it sound like people taking decisions on behalf of an institution do so without taking their own personal interests into account. Believe me they do.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Under the seven principles of public life, they shouldn't.

[ProfessorDavey]

Most accounts I have read go with the idea that he was mainly convicted for his heretical views on such doctrines as the Trinity, the Virgin Marty, transubstantiation etc. If his science has any role, it is minor.

Which fits with what I said - that his science was one element. I never said it was the main, let alone the only element.

However the recent work by Martinez argue that his scientific views were the primary reason for this death. Not saying I agree with him, but it is a view.

[Nearly Sane]

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Under the seven principles of public life, they shouldn't.

Under the one principle of life, that's an idiotic idea

[Nearly Sane]

Blimey add 2 plus 2 and make ten thousand.

Show me exactly where in this thread, or indeed elsewhere, where I have implied that religion is uniquely bad.

On this thread the starting point was me challenging Vlad's view that 'Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant.'

My point was that there have been examples where religions have done exactly that - to suppress views, which are actually correct and backed up by evidence, that they felt went against doctrine and to persecute those making those views.

I did not say that all religions do this. Nor did I say that religions do this all the time. Nor did I say that all religious believers do this.

So stop misinterpreting what I said (and what I didn't say).

I, of course, accept that religions are invented by humans. I'm an atheist - why would I think otherwise. But then so are all other non-religious institutions - that does not mean that those institutions do not have their own structures, rules, processes, ethos etc that means that when people make decisions within the context of that institution they may not make the same decision as they would do if it was a purely private matter.

and he reifies religions again beyond people. Bing!