Galileo vs The Church
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- Thoughts from places: Griffith Observatory
The most beautiful ceiling is the one that plainly depicts the truth.
All of the pictures and overlay in this video were taken on my trip to Europe in 2009 (except night sky time lapses filmed in the South Australian desert). My point is this: if "no one could have acted with more piety" then why was Galileo persecuted? If we should "not allow the movement of the Sun and Earth to become a matter of faith," then why was it? The best way to deal with unfortunate history is truthfully, not with propaganda.
Galileo was not tortured or persecuted nearly as much as the average person who knows fuck all about history thinks. It was more of a dispute about his theories, his biggest supporters were in fact members of the church.
I hope you ain't serious dude. Church did persecute Galileo for his idea. Burned his books and tortured him until he had to retract all of his studies. His famous quote when he retracted the heliocentric theory was "although it moves". The dark ages were dark because of the church and its obscurantism. If church wouldn't have done what it did i can't help but wonder how technologically evolved we would be now!
Silas Panelo Sadia thats because they didnt teach anybody to write or read so they had to go to a priest to have the bible read. Of course I regard that aspect. But just how many ramanujan and keplers have we lost to illiteration during that age?
8 years of house arrest for seeking scientific knowledge that may conflict with the bible. Giordano Bruno burnt alive at the stake at the hands of the Catholic Church........ Such a loving God
+Ted LeMoine 8 years of House arrest in a very nice villa for being a jackass to the pope, his largest supporter, and claiming all of his theories where correct without actually providing sufficient evidence. Hell, the theory he was touting was over 80 years old, and the Church funded his research. It was basically an overblown case of Fraud, that should have been resolved in Galileo's favor but what are you gonna do.
+Ted LeMoine It's not gods fault... An existence that does not exist, can't be blamed for anything, done by real people.
hmm, the persecution narrative has been over played in the American media and Ameircan Education system.
the trurh lies in a more balanced story that follows as such
1 the Galileo was catholic
2 the church at his time was teaching the aristolelian/ptolemaic scientific view of the uninverse becuase that was what scientists agreed upon
3 the pope at that time and galelio were friends and both were documented as egotistical men who disagreed but so most of society and other scienctists at the time
4 the church herself setup universities for advance studies including to teach the sciences even before this time
5 the church wrongly thought that galelio did not prove his case but his book greatly insulted the church offically personally thus the judgement was made harshly and badly to make an example of galileo
i concede this chapter should not be lost but history should not bais one way or the other on this story; progressiveness doesn't have to revisition either
just search "the galileo myth" on UA-cam watch some sourced info on this
Actually the roman church apologies for that in 1992
Also, Italy it's a crappy place to search for good scientific dissemination
***** actually wrong. Italian scientists are world renowned. They achieved some pretty impressive goals in medicine and science although to be absolutely fair, most of them outside of Italy as we (me and you, i am Italian as well) knkw science and school fundings get cut progressively year after year since Berlusconi II (2001)
Dude thank you
Thanks. I'm aware of the belated apology - what I was referring to was the lack of any mention of this at a huge exhibit on his work. How about a couple sentences like "He was prevented from publishing and kept under house arrest for the last couple decades of his life. The Catholic Church deeply regrets and apologises for this treatment..."
Don't listen to apologists. I am so happy you made this video ;_;
@@AaaBbb-hv4yg Anti catholic propoganda there
Actually the Church has admitted they were wrong at the time. This is a quote:
"Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system.
Galileo was not persecuted because of his scientific work. I'm so surprised to hear you repeating the same ignorant beliefs that countless others have spouted without looking closer at the situation.
You're an academic; you know how to conduct research. Read the "court" transcripts concerning Galileo's trial; read Galileo's correspondence. Not even once did the Church ever seek to silence to Galileo for his science. In fact, the Church celebrated the work of Copernicus and others, and they celebrated Galileo for his work in advancing science.
Throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the Church was the biggest benefactor of the arts and sciences. If it wasn't for the Church's patronage of the sciences, we'd still be stuck in the Dark Ages. For hundreds of years, the top scientists in the world were also active priests. Copernicus was a priest; Roger Bacon was a priest. Over 30 craters on the moon are named for priests who also made great contributions to science.
What the Church did attempt to do was get Galileo to stop teaching his science as true when he had no actual scientific proof to back it up. Galileo was always free to teach his theory on heliocentrism, but the Church didn't want him teaching his theory as absolute truth unless there was actually evidence to back it up. Such evidence didn't come about for a few hundred years.
Aren't today's scientists held to that standard? A scientist today cannot come up with an idea and then go out and start teaching it as scientific truth unless he/she has evidence. That's all the Church wanted from Galileo; either he come up with evidence or he present his views as just an unproven hypothesis.
Galileo's attempt at explaining tides can serve as a good example to show that scientists are sometimes wrong. Galileo thought his theory on tides was correct and would replace Kepler's theory that the moon affects Earth's tides. Without evidence to back up a claim, a scientist should not propagate his theories as 'truth.'
The is no conflict between the Church (faith) and science (reason).
(When I say "the Church" I refer to the universal Christian Church, better known as the Catholic Church. Sadly, there are several small, but very outspoken, denominations of Christianity that hold views that are more akin to superstition than anything else.)
Church like a businessman spent money on arts and sciences strictly when they were about God. Other people back in the middle ages had money and sponsored artists and sciences and if they weren't to discontent the Church this behaviour would have contributed way more to science and arts than the Church itself. And about speaking like you have the truth without proof sounds quite ironic coming from the catholic church dont you think? Galileo was a pretentious douche, but he was (mostly) in the right to do so. There was no conflict between science and religion... until religion decided othewise. And this behaviour continued until Lutero shoved their attitude up their pompous asses. Say whatever you want, religion did tramp science back in the days. They also made amend for Galileo's persecution in 1992.
@@Patrick-po6vx we got an edgelord extraordinaire in here
I tend to agree, but you have to tell the whole story.
Ok
I'm an atheist. I don't mind people preaching about religion, or promoting it or whatever, but I really hate it when religion gets in the way of science.
The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....
-Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992
I think he's angry that the whole affair isn't even mentioned, that they completely omit it and don't give the public the whole story
incorruptible popes, not mummified popes
+Drew Swinford dead popes
".. and we should apologize..", why's that?
The current believers of catholicism didn't persecute Galileo, and Galileo aint around to recieve the apology. So who is supposed to apologize to who?
And you said, right before the former mentioned, that ".. and I felt like in 2009 we should be able to admit the wrong doings of the past..", and I feel like we in 2014 (aswell as in 2009), should be able to forget or at least not get emotionally attached to historical events - move on! You're finger pointing, due to an unfortunate event having happend hundreds of years ago.. That's seems like a quite irrational behaviour from my perspective.
then let go that Jesus guy you keep talking about.
LG97187
exactly what i was thinking hahahaha!
You're right! What's the use of an apology when they keep doing the same mistakes in the 21st century.
LG97187
I'm not emotionally attached to what happend 2014 years ago..
Philandros
You don't appear to comprehend very well. It is not an emotional attachment to something that happened 2014 years ago? It is something that is HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!!! Why are you so thick and blind that you can't even under stand that? He didn't walk through the church 2014 years ago and get offended, it was NOW. They are white washing history and lying about it, effectively changing history. You can not learn from history if you don't tell the truth about history! You try to act intelligent but if you can not understand this very simple thought, you are quite unintelligent. It also takes quite and arrogant and obnoxious person to continue to argue something so simple and basic.
You just spoke my mind dude...
Sorry, but is one of my pet peeves. So, how do I put this... People often give both too little and too much credit to Galileo Galilei: while he was a vocal proponent of heliocentricism, that's it, he was just a very vocal proponent of an, at the time, unpoular theory. But, astronomy wasn't his main area of study; physics was. Sure, he did invent a type of a telescope, but then again, so did Newton, and it's not the first thing people remember about the guy. Did he get prosecuted for being a proponent of heliocentricism? Well... at first it was like he was actively trying to piss people off(which I am not saying that is neccesarly bad, but not exactly good for your general health), and later, when things started to get serious he... chickened out and denied everything, then promised too be a good christian and stay in his house for the rest of his days. Sure, kinda like inprisonment, but definetly a much more lofty accomodation then of, say, Giordano Bruno, who was burned at stike. Kinda dissapointing, coparatively. But the thing everyone forgets about Galileo is that he is the father of modern dynamics, and he did most(not all) of his research while in captivity. You colud almost(!) argue that the captivity was the best thing to happen to him: he could finaly stop advocating other people's theories and work on his own. Most of his work with pendulum hails from that time. Newton is often quoted saying about standing on the shoulders of giants, and people keep forgeting Galileo is one of those giants: he set some foundation for the famos Newton's laws. So lets give credit where the credit is due. Oh, and the whole blindness thing? Well that is condition you often get from staring at the sun, as Galileo was wont to.
Have concerns that this video will perpetuate myths about how Galileo was treated, since you're not very specific about it. The persecution of Galileo is both overblown, and constantly misunderstood. He was not persecuted for suggesting these scientific ideas, he was persecuted for promoting ideas that had not yet been adequately proven and using that to make grand claims about scripture that were completely unwarranted including insulting the pope (the heresy part). You could almost argue that the church, in its own misguided, heavy-handed way, was as much protecting the scientific method as their own belief system -- though the scientific method was still a long way from developed and not really a "thing" yet.
lol - Apolgist ho! The church was protecting the scientific method by stopping the dissemination of Galileo's work because they needed to check if it coincided with the Bible? Wow. *slow clap*
chbrules Nope, that's not what I said. They didn't want him using unproven scientific ideas to make claims about *scripture*. The scientific ideas themselves were fine (albeit they weren't yet evidenced, and the church suggested caution until that was the case). These days science and religion are treated quite separately, but it was a little different then, and Galileo was quite outspoken about his interpretation of scripture in contrast to the views of the pope. It wasn't about Galileo's scientific views, it was about his religious views.
"philosophicly wrong and formally heretic"
The last part was because he argumented for its claims like like the herestic did not because the claim was heretic.
The only problem he had was that, while couldn't proof it, claimed his hypothesis as fact instead of a hypothesis.
Actually in large part it WAS about Galileo's scientific views. A big chunk of what he was pushing was in fact a bunch of unscientific hogwash. That doesn't excuse persecuting him.
Similarly, people are unaware that Newton proposed some really dumb things alongside his groundbreaking work on gravity, calculus, etc. The difference was that Newton wasn't persecuted for his dumb ideas.
If you see how Galileo's testimonies were changed before and after the persecution of the Church, your conclusion would've been quite the opposite. The evidence for a heliocentric model was already there from Copernicus' discoveries, but, out of fear of heresy, the work was considered to be a convenience for astronomical calculations and not a valid scientific model.
Two things:
1. My trip to Europe was in 2009. The vlog was filmed last week but describes thoughts I experienced in the moment, hence "It's 2009..."
2. The fundamental trouble, it seems to me, is that any institution based on trust without evidence will face a crisis when its claims are shown to be false. If they were wrong about this then what else could they be wrong about?
Actually, few years ago Vatican reveals a documents (from his lawsuit) which says that Galileo never been persecuted. He was imprisoned in a very convenient place. He also (honestly) deniad Copernican theory. And he never said famous words "and yet it moves". All story is a fairy tale. So stay cool.
Sources, please.
Leonard Zuñiga I realize that it is not popular knowledge. But in german newspaper "Die zeit" wrote about this in 1980, when all that case revealed. This is no novelty. I read about this in other source, but that publication is not translated on English, i'ts in my native language... I've just found an article about this, and it's base on books like: Arthur Koestler "Lunatics"; Annibale Fantoli "Galileo for copernicanism and for the church"; Vittorio Messori "I. Pensare la storia. Una lettura cattolica dell'avventura umana., II. La sfida della fede. Fuori e dentro la Chiesa: la cronaca in una prospettiva cristiana, III. Le cose della vita".
Ambroży Fiszke Yes, but I can't seem to find such article. One of the reason would probably be because I can't understand German, but that'll be overcame with online translators, albeit inaccurate sometimes. I've read about Galileo being persecuted because of his disobedience to the church by promoting heliocentric views even without sufficient evidence. Source here: Moy, T. "Science, Religion, and the Galileo Affair." SKEPTICAL INQUIRER 25.5 (2001): 43-45. And actually him being "saved" because he could be burnt at a stake due to heresy. Here: Dickson, David. "Was Galileo Saved by Plea Bargain?: Controversy surrounds a novel claim that Galileo's trial was a plea-bargaining process, designed to protect him against charges of heresy for promoting the atomic theory of matter." Science (New York, NY) 233.4764 (1986): 612.
But just like I said before, I seem unable to find such claims that he wasn't persecuted at all. Although it may not look like it, I'm asking due to curiosity, and I'll appreciate a link forwarding to the exact article.
Leonard Zuñiga The article which I found is in Polish. :) Of course you can find many sources in English about that story. I'm not saying, that Galileo wasn't persecuted at all. I said, that many aspect of this story wasn't true. Galileo was not defender of Copernican theory for example. He said he never believed that the Earth moves and the Sun stands. He was also was not imprisoned in some terrible conditions, like many people think.
Ambroży Fiszke Yes. I agree that the story isn't all there is to it, and is wrong on some things. But the statement that caught my eye the most would be "few years ago Vatican reveals a documents (from his lawsuit) which says that Galileo never been persecuted." Do you agree with this so-called document?
I was concentrating on this statement due to the observation that seems to suggest that it's the easiest one to find and verify. Just finding the so-called document and going a bit more to verify that's it's genuine would provide support to the claim. At least on Vatican's records. May I get at least the article name and other details, if it's not possible to provide a link?
They 'persecuted' him for publishing false science, then to add insult to injury, he published it in the vernacular, rather than in Latin, which brought about many false beliefs by the masses. He was not persecuted for merely observing what Copernicus had already discovered a generation earlier. The real problem is that you, and almost everyone who was 'educated' by the secular machine, don't study anything like history on your own, you just swallow whatever the 'teacher' feeds you. Galileo published a whole lot of other things that were not proven and were later proven to be false, such as his explanation of the tides. Copernicus was hailed by the Church and ask to help rework the calendar which still had issues. He devoted his work to the Pope who helped him as much as possible. Galileo was a brilliant man, for sure, but nothing compared to Copernicus, who used his head, unlike Galileo who used a 'macroscope', aka, telescope, which he 'invented', by reversing the newly invented microscope. The Church is constantly dumped on because of bad history lessons propagated by the Public, Compulsory Brainwashing Machine. Copernicus discovered the heliocentric nature of the solar system and was celebrated by the Catholic Church. Galileo confirmed what Copernicus had already discovered a generation earlier. But Galileo went on to concoct a whole lot of false science and published it in the common language, spreading error upon error. The moral/Moria of this story is 'do your own home work, not just swallow the Bullsh*t'.
I don't see any replies. Why?
+RaphaelAtherill maybe he's doing his homework, we shouldn't disturb him XP
That's so substantive of yours...
A few other facts on the topic, rarely spoken of: Galileo was not arrested nor imprisoned in any way. During the investigation into his case he was housed in very comfortable quarters with friends of his for a total of 21 days. In his day, there was really no other center of science and research than the Vatican. Only the Church was remotely interested in science at this point in Western Civilization, and it was still the center of all education that hadn't followed Luther into the 'dark'. The fact is that Ptolemeic Astronomy was very heavily invested in by most of the scientific community including Galileo himself, until he observed the solar system personally. But many were not convinced and like every other community of peers, there were many who had a lot to lose if the old Ptolemeic system were overturned. It's like this in every field of study, in fact we witness this same attitude regarding 'evolution' today. So many have swallowed the cool-aid of Evolution, (rather than 'adaptation' as it in fact is), that they have become hostile to any thought and evidence that challenges it. That the heliocentric nature of our solar system was 'calculated' by Copernicus and then 'observed' by Galileo, (though not for long enough, at the time, to be beyond any doubt), was not enough, yet, to completely over turn the vast accumulation of Ptolemeic Astronomy. Like any other responsible organization, that doesn't just jump on every band wagon passing by, the Catholic Church required a thorough peer review and debate on the facts. Galileo thumbed his nose at the process and got himself reprimanded by the ONLY scientific authority in the Western World. Then to publish in the vernacular and include many other 'novelties and innovations' and to overlook many other credible scientists such as Kepler, and go off on his own was not just irresponsible it was bad science. He got himself into trouble with the scientific community for his lack of solid protocol and diligence, and that community just happened to be The Catholic Church.
+RaphaelAtherill mhm i don't understand what you mean with the word substantive XD
The reason it is not in the exhibit is partly because everybody, and I mean everybody, already knows the "dark" history. Often that's all they know about the man. Ask the person on the street "Who was Galileo?" and half will answer "some astronomer persecuted by the Church" and likely fewer will mention Jupiter's moons, telescopes, or Copernicus. This is probably even more true in Italy than in the English speaking world. The exhibit is actually showing people something else for once, and that's probably a good thing. Indeed, the exhibit at Santa Maria degli Angeli e dei Martiri has the specific theme of honoring Galileo as a man of science and a man of enduring faith. Galileo was prosecuted and convicted unjustly before the Roman Inquisition. The history is complicated and of the two parties the Church comes off either rather worse, or much much worse, depending on how you weigh the facts. In 1992, the last formal vestige of that injustice was removed with Galileo's public exoneration. A final gesture long overdue. That the man never abandoned his faith despite his devastating legal troubles put upon him by the Church authorities certainly might well have found a place in the exhibit. However, the decision to take the exhibit in a fresh direction hardly renders the exhibit as a whole or its various elements "false", as you described them. If you go to museums a lot, you will notice many presentation--especially special exhibits--tend to be selective or narrow in focus. This is usually with the intent of presenting a fresh perspective on an subject. But unless there is an affirmative represent that an exhibit is comprehensive as to a topic, such shortcomings hardly amount to falsehoods. I think what you really are trying to say is that you find the composition of the exhibit self-serving. If that's what you thought, then you should have just said so. In any case, the exhibit cannot be seen as an attempt to hoodwink a public that is not ignorant of Galileo's trials. It may rightly be seen as an attempt to reclaim Galileo, the man of science, as a faithful Catholic. This is not dishonest inasmuch as it is the truth of the man himself. Furthermore, it is an interesting aspect of his character and one wholly worthy of exploration in some exhibit, sometime, someplace. Apparently, you find that exhibit. Congratulations.
Also, I would suggest the planetariums like the one at the Palais de la Decouverte are more the legacy of Brahe's work or Kepler's work than Galileo's.
Lastly, seriously, you can't develop taste in art or architecture overnight. You have to give it some time. Start with small samples and work your way along. Then you can come back to Rome when you're ready and really appreciate it.
49metal When you say that Galileo was unjustly prosecuted and convicted what do you think he was prosecuted and convicted for? How many times was he actually tried? He was NEVER prosecuted for his science specifically, he was prosecuted because he was presenting his science as the absolute truth before having the complete evidence to back his position (which is true especially during his first trial) but MORE he was prosecuted for defining theology which is not the realm of science. It was taking on the interpretation of scripture itself that he was in trouble.
MrRogersHobbyhood Galileo Galilei was arrogant, outspoken and, lest we forget, Florentine, all of which played a part in his grief, of which he was the primary author. Copernicus demonstrated that it was possible to offer geocentrism as a viable system without being condemned by anyone. Galileo demonstrated that if you wanted trouble you could certainly find it--indeed he found a way to get not just himself but Copernicus, who circulated freely for a lifetime, banned. The customary cartoonish legend of Galileo as martyr to science, however, is more bunk than reality. To distill such a complicated human, political, and ideological affair to such simple terms is childish and deeply ignorant. It also conveniently ignores the fact that Galileo was attacking the scientific establishment, including minds no less venerable than his own (e.g. Brahe).
Nevertheless, I say unjustly prosecuted and convicted. The 1616 judgment was unjust and was more about vindicating the bruised egos of Galileo's inferiors at the Collegio Romano than protecting the faith of the common people. To the extent the latter motive was at work, it was based on a false proposition, held by Bellarmine, that teaching heliocentrism as fact or even a possible fact would "harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture as false." This is a false reading of Scripture by the eminent Cardinal, a false teaching for which he might have faced prosecution in a different day. If the judgment had simply banned Galileo from comments about the relationship between Scripture and his theory, it would have been just and appropriate. Even requiring that he qualify his theory as being one of a number of competing theories, none of which was proven absolutely might have been a tolerable injunction. However, to order Galileo "to abandon completely" the opinion that the sun was the center of the universe was, under the circumstances, unjust. The 1633 judgment was merely an extension of this injustice. While it was designed to avoid it, the Dialogue does violate the 1616 injunction. This is because to review the evidence for the competing theories objectively (not that Galileo was so objective) is to effectively advocate heliocentrism precisely because that is where the bulk of the evidence leads. In any case, no one needed to read the Dialogue to know what Galileo's opinion was. Everyone who picked up the volume surely knew Galileo's true opinion already--an opinion he had been enjoined from having, yet persisted in.
Galileo was prosecuted because of a false theological opinion which had become dominant in The Holy Office: That the truth of Holy Scripture depended on the truth of geocentrism. This was a false doctrine. Galileo was placed under house arrest for the balance of his life for brushing up against this false doctrine expounded and taught by men more powerful than he. I think it was unjust.
Here's a few things to remember about the Galileo Affair:
1. The Catholic Church never persecuted or condemned Copernicus, the man who proposed heliocentrism.
2. Copernicus was not the first to propose the heliocentric theory. That was Aristarchus, the Greek 3rd Century BC astronomer. Which brings us to...
3. Aristarchus' model was rejected in favor of the geocentric theory, proposed by Aristotle and ultimately, Ptolemy.
4. The Ptolemeic system became the de facto model of the universe and remained so for over 1,000 years. It actually worked very well. It was only 11 minutes off annual schedule, compared to the Copernican system.
5. People usually say that the Catholic Church condemned Galileo because what he was saying wasn't in the Bible. However, during this period that coincided with the Reformation, the Catholic Church was busy condemning the Protestants because they preached, among other heresies, "sola scriptura", or what can today be called "Biblical fundamentalism".
Now, if those aren't five points to take into consideration while laying into the Catholic Church for being an "unscientific enemy of humanity", I don't know what are. Suck it, Dawkins.
1. his work was only forbidden for over four hundred years(406)
2. what does that have to do with the church?
3. look at no. 2
4. look at no. 2 and 3
5. during this period(as well as almost any other), they preached "you're with us or against us" (and "hunted down" the latter)
in conclusion, your five "points" prove only that you are a complete stranger to logic... i mean, how could you possibly connect those to get what you've come up with? i'm trying to understand the logic behind it... hurts my brain
Ivan Petković You're disregarding every point I made.
Do you like the word "logic"? If so, you should probably look up it's meaning, since you obviously haven't a concept as to what it means.
Oh yeah, I think you're really clever. I hope you know what sarcasm is...
Actually the first was Hicetas (ca. 400 BC - ca. 335 BC, who died some 30 years before Aristarchus was born), and he was mentioned in Cicero's Academica (Acad. prior. 2.123), in which he records Theophrastus' saying that according to Hicetas of Syracuse, as says, holds that "the heaven, the sun, the moon, the stars, and in fact all things in the sky remain still, and nothing else in the universe moves except the earth ; but, as the earth turns and twists about its axis with extreme swiftness, all the same results follow as if the earth were still and the heaven moved. "
But your point is valid, the Church did not declared Cicero's writings as heresy. Not that anyone knew that Cicero was interested in astronomy, but this is another matter, most of them, or even scientists, do not know this even today.
1. Copernicus died a year after he published his work. It took time for the church to digest it, and in a few years, some bishops were already recommending that it be banned. While reviewing the case against Galileo, Copernicus' work *WAS* banned. I.e., the *ONLY* reason why the church didn't persecute Copernicus was because he died before they appreciated the fact that he was contradicting the bible.
2, 3. Completely non-sequitur. Aristarchus is insufficiently documented; it is unknown what his justification for this proposal was. Galileo, on the other hand, answered all critics and it well documented.
4. Actually, because of the Dark Ages, the Ptolemaic system was lost to the Roman Empire and people were just plain ignorant of celestial matters. The Ptolemaic system was standard for a while in the Arabic Empire, but was worked over substantially by Tusi, Urdi, and Shatir, to the point that it was not really Ptolemy's model any more. When Europe "re-awakened" in the mid 13th century, they adopted the Arabic versions of the Ptolemaic models.
5. Martin Luther and other "Reformers" also condemned Copernicus and Galileo. That was the whole point -- they were trying to show that the Catholic Church was too lax, and unable to enforce their own scripture.
Any fair reading of the Galileo Affair can have no other conclusion than that the Catholic Church was interfering with science, and condemned a man because he refused to be censored.
Paul Hsieh I am doing a research paper on Galileo's persecution. Could you recommend any academic sources?
I know they admitted wrongdoing in 1992 and apologised publicly in 2000, but then you can't put up a massive exhibit in 2009 and not once mention that he was falsely persecuted, placed under house arrest and prevented from publishing.
How was he falsely persecuted? When asking for evidence for his claims, he insulted the pope (who was his friend). It was even other scientists at the time also disagreed with him. It wasn't until after house arrest that Galileo finally provided evidence.
*unsubscribes*
Andrew B.
We won't miss you :3.
Religious people are so butt-hurt about science. I'm so happy to see the world embracing science at an ever-increasing pace. We need to extinguish the religious dribble fools believe on nothing but faith. It is dangerous.
@@chbrules well said. Religious people are embrace other people to believe in conspiracies without thinking.
I don't intend to cause an argument with this statement, but I believe I have something that needs said. Within all this science-talk, which I am rather fond of, I see many people bashing my beliefs and simply telling me I'm wrong for believing what I do, which seems exactly the same as that which they were critizing the church for doing to Galileo. Now, I believe what I believe what I do, and as does anyone else have the same right. But I think I can reasonably state that the true injustice is that while I sit here, not judging anyone's beliefs, my right to believe what I will, all the while keeping to myself what I may believe the inaccuracy of others' beliefs, they should attempt to condemn my beliefs as scientifically invalid and void for mere consideration, which I recall is the same injustice those Americans that weren't religious fought to gain. Again, I won't tell anyone that you're wrong, because I wouldn't want to take away your inalienable rights that you so enjoy, but I do ask in return that those who have dissimilar beliefs from you would be treated the same, and not judged and bashed because you deem them wrong. I trust all of you that have done so would take this into consideration. Good day to you all.
You should be happy that the church upholds Galileo. Now all these things your talking about...Not seeing the suffering he went through for what he believed written on the church walls. This is in the past. The church wants to bring forward the myriad of good this man brung to faith and science, and forget the atrocities of the past, they where wrong, yes. The church publicly apologized for what they have done to Galileo, what more do you want? They are singing his praises! and THATS what Galileo deserved.
As a catholic myself, I actually agree if Galileo tragedy is displayed there.
for me the Galileo and Copernicus tragedy is a reminder that what I thought is true might not be at all, something that the catholic church have been struggling for some time
Regardless of the exact degree of persecution, how about museums talking about how so many of these great historical figures were Christians or Catholics, many people forget to mention that when talking about Galileo.
Or how about that Galileo was poking fun at the pope directly ? His treatment was at least as much because of a bad personal relationship with the pope as it was about his views on the sun and planets.
Also, how about people remembering that geo-centric models of the time predicted the position of the stars, planets, and sun, nearly as well at helicentric ones ?
that's when I was going around Europe. So apparently I've saved up that frustration and the trip to the planetarium triggered it for me.
The Church is always right. Sometimes it takes centuries to discover what "right" is.
i live in Rome... i know that feel bro
well it is not realy propaganda,, they expect people to already know his story
I think this is a little one sided especially the criticism of the artwork on the church. Granted I have never been there and may have been overwhelmed, but I think it is beautiful the Majesty and thought that has gone into it, the high ceilings, the statues, I may not go for mummification but there is so much there to admire.
If they did not mention his treatment it is because it is the first thing people know about Galileo, that he was persecuted by the Church. He is the antithesis of "the evils of the Church."
People and organizations should own up to their mistakes, I am not denying the evil's that have been committed, but that does not mean the bad should take away from the good, nor the good from the bad.
I find it ironic that you go on such a long explanation about "the really hard work people put into discovering the stars," and didn't talk about the beauty that went into making the art, paintings and buildings, as well as maintaining them. I love science and study it all the time, but it is one facet of human creation, along with art, poetry, architecture and so on.
I understand the annoyance of propaganda being shown left and right for the church, but there is still an incredible beauty and hard work in the art, and buildings, that you seem to deny on the basis that you do not agree with The Church.
A lot of wrong information. Disapointed with this video.
So I guess honoring his name and dedicating cathedrals to him is not worthy of being called an apology....
no it is not would you agree to being burnt alive for a cathedral ?
mohammed alzahrani you realize that Galileo wasn't burned at the stake right?
allen mathew the Church has formally apologized for putting Galileo under house arrest.
and science is by no means a religion. science can't tell us anything useful about truth or morality. nor do humans fully understand science at this point anyway
allen mathew here are some examples given by William Lane Craig on what science can't prove
1. Logic and Mathematics
2. Metaphysical truths
3. Ethical beliefs
4. Aesthetic judgments
5. Science itself
1-You can’t prove that logic or math work because the only way to do so would be to use logic or math. If all you follow is reason then how can you prove that reason works? This doesn’t mean we should never use logic or math it just means that it’s reasonable to believe in some things regardless if they can be proven.
2-Many Metaphysical truths cannot be proven using science. For instance (and these questions have exist for a LONG time now) think about the Matrix how can I know that I’m not hooked up to a machine right now living in some virtual reality? How do you know you’re not dreaming right now? What if your mind is the only one that exists and your just imagining everyone else? None of these things can be proven but we’re not only reasonable for not believing them but believing one of them may land you in a mental ward.
3- Science can’t prove any ethical truths. There will never be a sufficient scientific reason for why what the Nazi’s did was wrong. Yet I think we’re all reasonable to believe they’re wrong.
4-Science can’t prove truths about beauty. Science, try as it might, can’t explain why I like one poem over another. Still we’re all reasonable to believe that some things are beautiful and that some things aren’t.
5-Science (as hilarious as it is) can’t prove itself. Similar to number 1, for science to prove that it works it would have to use science. It’s impossible, yet we all are reasonable to believe in science.
Science really isn't all that great when you think about it. At least not as great as you're making it out to be. You can't replace religion with science.
allen mathew the point I'm trying to make is that for somebody to live by science as if it's a religion would be living in a world filled with millions of
unanswered questions and misery. Science is only useful if you're willing to assume A LOT of information. Science knows nothing about truth.
Did the exhibit mention that Galileo practiced "judicial astrology", the predicting of people's future based on their horoscope? It wasn't merely a source of income, the surviving manuscripts include horoscopes for his brother, his daughters, some of his friends, and two for Galilei himself, with different times of birth (was he trying to get the best possible future?).
This is rarely mentioned in overviews of Galileo's life, because it doesn't fit the "father of science" image. Let's face it, censorship can be found everywhere.
I posted this (despite foreseeing the inevitable comments) because it is truly how I felt. I wanted to convey the sense of comfort and awe I felt in that planetarium. Maybe it will resonate with those who watch it. "So may the outward shows be least themselves: The world is still deceived with ornament."
For what it's worth, The church has apologized. Pope John Paul II officially apologized for it, I believe in October 1992.
According to some posters here, Galileo was lucky to be "imprisoned in a very convenient place". Oh, wow! Thanks church. Good that history reveals the church as what it really is and not as how blind followers think it is.
As for me, I choose knowledge.
What's the point of this outburst of retaliationism? or rather, this outburst of political correctness? History was what it was and no amount of whining will change that. I guess you don"t know that the church already apologized. Please, continue to make your wonderful science videos and stay out of politics and religion.
Excuse, my friend, I have to disagree. You lie here. The Church never obstructed the publication and spread of the heliocentrism not even of the book 'Discurse on two new sciences', of Galileu. What the Pope asked for forgiveness was not by any condemnation of heliocentrism and yes the way Galileo was treated. But the question was different, other times and much more complex than the simplism what these ridiculous pseudo scientific atheists of UA-cam want to say.
no, they only made him deny it publicly. Eppur si muove!
Jesus freaks like you are funny...and sad.
although it wasn't so much about heliocentric itself. the larger issue was the plurality of worlds. Galileo may have been persecuted for his belief in a heliocentric solar system, but Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for professing a belief in the plurality of worlds (that stars are suns like our own).
sorry jesus freak everything your religion has taught you to believe is a lie.
keep lying for god, it only undermines your position all the more.
Galileo NEVER said "eppur si muove". Ahahah.
Logos Apologética - let's get this straight once and for all:
The Catholic Church gave Galileo the choice to either:
*Publicly deny what he knew was true, and live under house arrest for the rest of his life,*
or
*Be burned alive for supporting the heretical idea that the earth revolved around the sun.*
The _truth_ is that the Catholic Church, and its deceiving supporters _like you,_ are a force for great evil in this world.
the suggestible nature of all these massive exhibits is kinda psychologically daunting and impressive but it is an example in a sense of something that i have recently come to despise.
the suggestible nature of great things people talk about nowadays. with over simplification and exaggeration of effects to try and meld another persons mind according to a subject, emphasizing the importance of the brain by stating how all the neural connections could stretch 5k kilometres. though people would have no understanding of a neural connections value.
relating to the grandiose designs, they only emphasize a single purpose of grandeur, something that says well this is cool because it looks special, whereas if you even try to interpret Michael Angelo's genesis painting you'll see its a critique of religion.
so if anyone reads my rant. fuck the fucking suggestibility of the world, we can all be so stupid.
You're great man. So positive and honestly excited over science, it's truly wonderful :)
Doctor, there are some debatable information on this video. Respectfully.
A fact is a fact. The RC church persecuted Galileo through the inquisition because he dared to teach a the truth about planetary motion that the church didn't agree with. This is fact.Don't expect the truth from the church, they claim to know there is a god, when of course there is not. Not their god, nor is there any other gods.
So you expect religious people to admit mistake? And apologize? Oh come on Derek, you are smarter than that!
They still need to apologize for supporting fascism during the WW2 and the child molesting priests and trying to stop giving out contraception in Africa (to help prevent HIV).
i think you need to look at this from a european standpoint (it was in europe, right?). we actually know all about galileo, and what was done to him. it's not a bed time story, but you are told about it pretty early on. every decent physics/science teacher and/or a history professor will mention it at some point. so, its not exactly a deep dark secret that the church won't acknowledge. it's common knowledge, and the fact that it wasn't mentioned in the exhibit is probably due to the organizer wanting it to be about celebrating galileo's work, and not just rehashing ancient history. in truth, his work far outshines all the darkness that surrounded it.
I've replied to this a number of times but I will say it again for you. I am aware of the belated apology. What I was looking for was any mention of it at a massive exhibit on Galileo and his work. There were only indirect mentions of his trial, no mention of his house arrest, being prevented from publishing, no mention of the apology.
As far as I know Galielo was accused for some heresy related to his theological views and not to the science itself.
I guess old buildings are underwhelming for someone who lives outside Europe. I, on the other hand, feel weird and uncomfortable in US because of all those modern buildings.
Was I the only one who laughed when he said he was "in his element"?
@0:05 he says "reminded me of of my planetarium visit from four years ago." 2013 - 4 = 2009 correct?
One of the many many dark aspects and idiosyncrasies of Italy. Let me know if you want to know more!
The Pope did apologies for the Galileo case in 1992.
Derek, you're not usually a ranter.
Notice that catholic Church, through pope John Paul II, has already acknowledged the "Galileo affair" in 1992, apologised for it and withdrew the sentece. Just for helping the truth research ;)
Galileo was wrong and the Catholic Church was right.
Seek the truth.
Ave Christus Rex!
Hail Christ the King!
Viva Cristo Rey!
From an Audience Guide from the Madison Opera:
"In 1741, the Church issued an Imprimatur that authorized publication of all of Galileo's work except 'Dialogues'. In 1759, the Church lifted the ban on books advocating heliocentrism and removed several works from its Index of Forbidden Books. [...] Not until 1820, when a Catholic canon challenged the Chief Censor's refusal to publish his book on heliocentrism, was the Church forced to make an official pronouncement. In 1822, the Church overturned the Censor's ruling and permitted the uncensored printing of heliocentric books. The 1616 prohibition of the heliocentric theory was officially lifted. In 1992, Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology declaring that the Church had erroneously convicted Galileo and that geocentrism was factually incorrect."
From 10/30/92 article of The New York Times published in 10/31/92:
"Since then, the Church has taken various steps to reverse its opposition to Galileo's conclusions. In 1757, Galileo's 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems' was removed from the Index, a former list of publications banned by the Church. When the latest investigation, conducted by a panel of scientists, theologians and historians, made a preliminary report in 1984, it said that Galileo had been wrongfully condemned. More recently, Pope John Paul II himself has said that the scientist was 'imprudently opposed.'"
From 10/31/92 article of The New York Times published in 11/01/92:
"Moving formally to rectify a wrong, Pope John Paul II acknowledged in a speech today that the Roman Catholic Church had erred in condemning Galileo 359 years ago for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun."
There's a decent video on UA-cam addressing this. Just search under "Galileo : Making the Case for Faith & Science". Also, the Church has publicly addressed any wrong doing in 1992 under John Paul II.
the church knew more about galileo's discovery than galileo himself. the church protected it's political authority in the same way any other organisation would do when challenged. apologizing to galileo is like apologizing to your kid because it found out there is no santa claus.
Dude, already have!
Hey Veritasium, I know you won't read this, but Saint John Paul II apologized for the church's treatment of Galileo. The Church did admit they were being asses at **that** time. But I do see your point in the video, that church should have mentioned the struggle between Galileo and the Church.
To check other side of facts, read section regarding this matter from David Bentley Hart's book "Atheist Delusions".
If not, I'll try to summarize it: Galileo had help from many priests that calculated real math behind Galileo's theory and offered it to him. He didn't care about it and declined it, however might have stolen bits of this to support his theory and claim it as his own. Plagiarism? Church wasn't the overall demon here, but historians sure want us to see it that way by presenting "his side of the story".
and what about Giordano Bruno? He wasn't only prosecuted but burnt by the Catholic Church for his observations that were prior to Copernicus' and I've that in some aspects were more accurate. I'm not against God's idea, but yes, Catholic Church has really damaged a lot, and it's something it will never get rid of
The hilarious thing is that his story is completely wrong. At the time the church was quite open with new discoveries and the Pope at the time was a friend and patron of Galileo and his work. The issue came to be when Galileo made this discovery and shared it with the world without providing sufficient evidence for the discovery. As an example, one piece of evidence is that the waves occurred from the earth’s movement around the sun which we know now to be completely illogical. Lacking sufficient evidence was not the only issue however. He was quite hostile with anyone that disagreed with him and began to harass and allegedly assault opponents to his view. Also, Galileo was not the first scientist to come to the conclusion that the earth traveled around the sun. Scientists began thinking this way hundreds of years before his time but they lacked sufficient evidence for their claims as well. It is also very untrue that this had any kind of religious tension by any means. There is no mention once nor has there ever been of the universe surrounding the world. This story was made up in the United States in the 1850s to promote anti-catholic views among the scientific community and their patrons. I am by no means catholic but I am a historian and I refuse to let untruths like this go unchecked. If anything could be considered “propaganda” it would be the story he is telling his viewers which has been told around the world in schools since the myth’s inception.
My sentiments exactly, as a Christian we hide away our "sins" especially against each other but then again, if we are so open about our wrongdoings, then it leaves other people to critise us. Many people use this criticism against Christ, they do not see the love that is religion or rules and law and Jesus. This is perhaps why the church isn't as open, because of our frail nature of being human, we know others will seek to take advantage. We have to see our strengths and work with one another, so much in science can be achieved with the light in the world, which is Jesus Christ.
EVERYONE WAS ON VACATION!!! Galileo was managing a Dairy Queen!
Calm down man ;)
I agree. It's even a matter of trust to others. If you cannot admit to past mistakes and failures, take full and true ownership from them, not only does that keep you from doing better in the future, it keeps others from believing you when you say you will do better. If you keep it up for long enough, people will stop believing you all together.
and that was a case that came to the public audience imagine much more buried deep down of similar cases like this.
i like how thats what you latched onto. and yes they are at odds. but some people learn to live with that conflict. science is the observation of the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. religion takes the word of a book denoting extra-ordinary things and takes them as true. example: jona and the whale, you cant live inside a whale. there is no air inside a whale. this is not pinocio. see my point?
Galileo's claims and evidence did not even meet the scientific standards of the day. He was just a loud mouth proud and arrogant PhD
Good video!
This is a suggestion why don’t you make a video about the other theories on UA-cam?
There are many theories on UA-cam that are not part of the mainstream of science it would be interesting to know what you think of them as part of mainstream science!
religion cant be religion if it makes mistakes... or thats how they see it. how can you believe the church is the channel of an almighty and good entity if the church has commited horrible crimes in that entity's name. all in all, im glad im a scientist.
The truth is hardly hidden. Your hate for the Catholic Church is very disappointing. It is unprofessional and wrong.
veritasium is supposed to be about science and understanding. There is no point in rubbing the past in people's faces. The Catholic Church now is different from the Catholic Church back in the day.
The sins of your great grand father do not reflect upon you, so why should it reflect upon others?
Seems that Galilei's conflict with the church has made him the hero of science. Is that why people conveniently ignore one of his main sources of income, drawing horoscopes and predicting people's future?
Most of early astronomy, from Ptolemy to Kepler, came about thanks to superstition: for some astrology was the prime interest, others were hired as personal astrologers by wealthy rulers.
1) It's a matter of opinion, requiring them to apologize again every time he is mentioned is not reasonable. I also got the date wrong, it was in 1992.
2) Look at today through the lens of people in the future. We're doing everything wrong too, and we don't know what history will judge to be the most wrong thing we are doing. It may seem obvious to us - repression of protected groups - but what will history make of it?
Perhaps I'm partly misguided by public acts by members of the Church - it's not like I haven't seen ludicrous amounts of homophobia with the recent allowing of gay marriage in the US, from Catholics - but to suggest that the Church isn't obscene about women bishops is fairly ridiculous. The Church, with its hierarchy, can't adequately 'care for women' without the full inclusion of women in that hierarchy. Swap the equal sexes: do you feel you could be properly represented by purely women?
I'd have to disagree. The Catholic Church is expressively misogynistic and homophobic, and those are becoming more and more frowned upon in the open society of the world. The Church has often apologised for its role in supporting slavery, segregation, and other injustices against races, and definitely 'reversed its morals' on those subjects. To say it wouldn't do the same on a similarly ridiculous rule as women bishops (or homosexuality, to throw that in here) is short-sightedness.
There is, regardless, an irrefutable shift in opinion as the Church becomes more liberal and understanding of the open morals of the masses (since 'morals' are essentially just a comparison of localised opinion against general opinion). There may not be a 'reversal' of morals yet, but I have no doubt that at some point women bishops will be wholly accepted, and the change is in progress. I couldn't fit in my previous comment that I meant the process of acceptance; the change is happening.
That's quite a void statement. Now, 'faith' and 'morals' are subjective, so I'll give you your opinion on the matter, but to say that the Catholic Church "was, is, and never will be wrong" about morals is just ridiculous. The Catholic Church has revoked its own moral-based decrees - for instance, women bishops, a once completely dismissed concept, are now being 'accepted'. Definitely a reversal of morals - if it is never wrong, are you saying both sides of the matter are right?
Veritasium! Your byeline is an element of truth but in this video you have strayed into territory which you are not well enough read up on to comment.
In Scotland this video would be called a rant.
There are many good books out there on the Galileo affair, as it is called. Please read them first before unleashing a rant against the Catholic Church.
Your science videos are superb don't waste your reputation with half truth rants spouted in this video.
You claims wasn't that MORE would be around red dwarf stars, but the BEST ones would be around red dwarf stars.
Last I checked, best is not the same thing as more. I have seen no evidence to claim that the best ones will be around red dwarfs. They might be, but your claim isn't substantiated by "more" of them being there.
You'll find more diamonds in a jewelry store than at the Smithsonian, but guess who has the best diamond?
To start, there's no such thing as "best." Either the planet can support life or it can't. And the recent findings only state that more habitable planets are likely to be found around red dwarf stars because there are more of them around, not because they're better.
Plus, radiation is a huge problem because the habitable zone is closer to a red dwarf than mercury is to our sun. Not great for beings not tolerant to radiation.
cont...
Or maybe it's the natural state of humans when we're struck across the face by how insignificant we are in the universe: a tiny planet, around a tiny star, in a tiny solar system, on the fringe of an ordinary spiral galaxy among trillions of other planets and stars in just our galaxy, our galaxy just a speck of dust among the trillions of galaxies in the universe.
What's sad is that you're probably arrogant enough to think it was all specially made for you.
By their very definition, yes.
Religious faith: 1. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Science: 1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
2. Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
If I may, the Catholic church apologized for the persecution of Galileo in 2007, before this video was recorded.
As with many things, it is difficult to gauge or understand the reality in his time. While the persecution definitely seems immoral when looking through the eyes of a 2009 human, it must have felt moral and just, when looked through the eyes of a 1642 human. Remember that morality was not always as open to freedom as it is today.
Didn't Galileo only have the real problem with the Vatican after he published the Dialogue Between Two Systems, where instead of, as we would put it today, teaching the controversy, he just mocked the geocentric viewpoint? I remember reading in a couple of letters he wrote years before this that he was getting flak from the church, but mostly at its lowest levels.
"And most of this abuse comes from a family member."
So now your excuse for us to leave the church alone is "your own family is worse." Hello, logical fallacy, glad to see you there...
It doesn't matter if priests are the people you have to worry about the least. The fact is that they are hidden and it's not rare. Stop trying to brush it aside.
cont 2...
You didn't have a theory. You had a guess. Theories require evidence and are models that yield accurate predictions based on actual data. I doubt you did any research of your own or produce any experimental data to build your theory from.
And none of that actually has anything to do with the point I was making.
Drunk! :p
So, so true!
People of reason have always been persecuted and oppressed by those willing to force their beliefs on free people.
Belief is the suppression, oppression and persecution of truth, facts and reality (and those who insist on truth, facts and reality.).
What a great example of why church and state need to be separated. Religion is at it's best when it is powerless to control the thoughts and actions of others.
I had a feeling you'd point that out. Heh...
Yeah, though - I'll bear that example in mind. I found it worryingly difficult just now to find many examples like it of mistreatment from the Catholic Church online, as though it's all hidden away. Eh...
persecution from church still happens and then the church brags with that person and some times they go as far as claiming the portrayed person is a god man and he was a supporter of the church
Catholic Church and moving (on, forward or whatever) are two words that just don't really fit together. By the way, in Santa Maria degli Angeli did you see also the hole in the wall or just the Galileo exhibition?
"I'm a real person, trying to free you from hatred's prison."
I'm a real rational person trying to make you realize that you're protecting a criminal organization because you believe things without evidence.
Grow up.
Are you a time traveler? You mentioned twice that it's 2009, so either you've held on to this footage for several years, you are a wizard, or my experience is 4 years out of phase with yours. Also, inertia.
Anyway, can the commenters please not pretend they have PhD's in religious studies and theology and realize the most they can give is an opinion, not some universal truth? Can we do that for just this one video?
I'd like to argue that there WAS a formal apology from the Roman Catholic Church issued by Pope John Paul II back in 2000. Mind you, I'm not entirely certain whether or not it's the church's influence that has made the museum or if they do want to brush aside their wrongdoings, or simply show history in that museum as opposed to science. The two museums seem to show very different subjects in general. Researching him was amazing, and you really saw how firm he was about his research.
It was in 2009 the Vatican City did a ceremony with an official apology and the acceptance of his work and contribution.
This video was filmed in 2009, so I think he recorded this before the ceremony.
You take for granted that a) the world needs ruling, b) the need proves the existence. If that's true then I REALLY NEED 1000000 DOLLARS! :D
Gods, why do I keep getting involved in these discussions?
The number of people who affiliate themselves with religion is decreasing. Religion has ruled long enough and now its time for an age of reason and science. Im tired of religious bullying and intimidation.