Rush Limbaugh: Hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy for promoting climate change

[Charles]

And...? Nothing there contradicts the article at Answers in Genesis.

The primary issue was that Galileo was asked to refrain from treating an unproven hypothesis as if it was true. In Galileo's own words, "Lord Cardinal Bellarmine told me that Copernicus's opinion could be held suppositionally, as Copernicus himself had held it."

Then there's the following illustrating just how personal and politically motivated the charges against Galileo really were:

Source: Famous Trials

Summoned before Bellarmine on February 25, 1616 and admonished, Galileo--according to a witness, Cardinal Oregius--"remained silent with all his science and thus showed that no less praiseworthy than his mind was his pious disposition." Oregius' account, and Galileo's own writings, indicate that Galileo did not "refuse to obey" the Church's admonition. It is assumed, therefore, that Galileo was not formally enjoined. Yet, surprisingly, in the Inquisition file there appeared the following entry:

"At the palace, the usual residence of Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, the said Galileo, having been summoned and being present before the said Lord Cardinal, was...warned of the error of the aforesaid opinion and admonished to abandon it; and immediately thereafter...the said Galileo was by the said Commissary commanded and enjoined, in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the said opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves; nor further to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing; otherwise proceedings would be taken against him by the Holy Office; which injunction the said Galileo acquiesced in and promised to obey."

Many things about the entry are suspicious. It appears in the Inquisition file where one would expect the actual Bellarmine injunction (if it existed) to appear. Moreover, the entry appears on the same page as the entry for the previous day--and every other report, legal act, and entry in the entire file begins at the top of a new page. It is widely believed by historians that the reported injunction of Galileo was "a false injunction": the injunction never happened, but a false report was maliciously planted in the file by one of Galileo's enemies. Seventeen years later, Galileo would stand before the Inquisition charged with violating an injunction that was, in all likelihood, never issued against him.

© Copyright Original Source

It continues:

Source: Famous Trials

In 1623, Galileo received some hopeful news: Cardinal Maffeo Barberini had been elected Pope. Unlike the dull and mean-tempered Pope Paul V, the new Pope Urban VIII held a generally positive view of the arts and science. Writing from Rome, the Pope's private secretary, Secretary of the Briefs Ciampoli, urged Galileo to resume publication of his ideas: "If you would resolve to commit to print those ideas that you still have in mind, I am quite certain that they would be most acceptable to His Holiness, who never ceases from admiring your eminence and preserves intact his attachment for you. You should not deprive the world of your productions."

© Copyright Original Source

Galileo eventually published his book after some political maneuvering; however:

Source: Famous Trials

By late summer, Galileo's hopes turned to fears when he learned that orders had come from Rome to suspend publication of his book. On September 5, the full scope of Galileo's problems became clearer when Pope Urban told Francesco Niccolini, who had come to the Vatican to protest the suspension decision, "Your Galileo has ventured to meddle in things that he ought not and with the most grave and dangerous subjects that can be stirred up these days." Jesuit enemies of Galileo had convinced the Pope that the Dialogue was nothing but a thinly-veiled brief for the Copernican model. The Pope complained that Galileo and Ciampoli deceived him, assuring him that the book would comply with papal instructions and then circumventing them. The Pope seemed especially embittered by Galileo's decision to put the Pope's own argument concerning the tides into the mouth of the simple-minded Simplico--an attempt, as he saw it, to ridicule him.

The Pope swung the machinery of the Church into motion. He appointed a special commission to investigate the Galileo matter. Riccardi, the chief licenser, was severely lectured. Ciampoli was exiled to obscure posts, never to return to Rome.

© Copyright Original Source

Then the trial began:

Source: Famous Trials

Four days later, Galileo officially surrendered to the Holy Office and faced Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the Inquisition, and his assistants. Firenzuola informed Galileo that for the duration of the proceedings against him he would be imprisoned in the Inquisition building. After putting Galileo under oath, the Commissary deposed Galileo concerning meetings he held with Cardinal Bellarmine and other church officials in 1616. Galileo seemed to have trouble remembering who might have been present with Bellarmine on that fateful February day seventeen years earlier, as well as exactly what restrictions--if any--had been placed upon him. Firenzuola told Galileo that he had been commanded to "neither hold, defend, nor teach that [the Copernican] opinion in any way whatsoever." Galileo quibbled with the language--suggesting "I do not remember...the clause "in any way whatsoever"--, but accepted most of what the Commissary said. After a series of questions concerning the licensing of the Dialogue, Galileo signed his deposition in a shaking hand.

[...]

The trial by the Congregation moved to its conclusion. Several of the ten cardinals apparently pushed for Galileo's incarceration in prison, while those more supportive of Galileo argued that--with changes--the Dialogue ought to continue to be allowed to circulate.

http://www.famous-trials.com/galileotrial/1014-home

© Copyright Original Source

So like I've been saying, this wasn't a case of science versus religion but a political exercise by Galileo's enemies. The fact that some of the judges were in favor of the book's continued publication is proof enough of that. The changes they wanted, and which were earlier requested by Urban, were to present the heliocentric hypothesis as more speculative whereas Galileo presented it as a proven theory despite his lack of proofs.

Many very long quotes and very little analysis. The papal condemnation clearly points to his ideas being contradictory to scripture. If you think that does not contradict the foolish claim that this was mainly about whether heliocentrism was a hypothesis or could be proven then this seems to be because you do not want to realise it. You simply ignore the content of my quotes and then provide some others in order to say nothing has changed. But it has since some of the reasons were clearly theological. Of course that is frustrating since their error consisted in taking the Bible by its word.

[Mountain Man]

Many very long quotes and very little analysis.

The facts speak for themselves. And they're coming from a source you provided, so you're denied your usual refuge of the genetic fallacy.

The papal condemnation clearly points to his ideas being contradictory to scripture.

As demonstrated by the facts, it wasn't anywhere as simple or straightforward as that.

[JimL]

And...? Nothing there contradicts the article at Answers in Genesis.

The primary issue was that Galileo was asked to refrain from treating an unproven hypothesis as if it was true. In Galileo's own words, "Lord Cardinal Bellarmine told me that Copernicus's opinion could be held suppositionally, as Copernicus himself had held it."

Then there's the following illustrating just how personal and politically motivated the charges against Galileo really were:

Source: Famous Trials

Summoned before Bellarmine on February 25, 1616 and admonished, Galileo--according to a witness, Cardinal Oregius--"remained silent with all his science and thus showed that no less praiseworthy than his mind was his pious disposition." Oregius' account, and Galileo's own writings, indicate that Galileo did not "refuse to obey" the Church's admonition. It is assumed, therefore, that Galileo was not formally enjoined. Yet, surprisingly, in the Inquisition file there appeared the following entry:

"At the palace, the usual residence of Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, the said Galileo, having been summoned and being present before the said Lord Cardinal, was...warned of the error of the aforesaid opinion and admonished to abandon it; and immediately thereafter...the said Galileo was by the said Commissary commanded and enjoined, in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the said opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves; nor further to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing; otherwise proceedings would be taken against him by the Holy Office; which injunction the said Galileo acquiesced in and promised to obey."

Many things about the entry are suspicious. It appears in the Inquisition file where one would expect the actual Bellarmine injunction (if it existed) to appear. Moreover, the entry appears on the same page as the entry for the previous day--and every other report, legal act, and entry in the entire file begins at the top of a new page. It is widely believed by historians that the reported injunction of Galileo was "a false injunction": the injunction never happened, but a false report was maliciously planted in the file by one of Galileo's enemies. Seventeen years later, Galileo would stand before the Inquisition charged with violating an injunction that was, in all likelihood, never issued against him.

© Copyright Original Source

It continues:

Source: Famous Trials

In 1623, Galileo received some hopeful news: Cardinal Maffeo Barberini had been elected Pope. Unlike the dull and mean-tempered Pope Paul V, the new Pope Urban VIII held a generally positive view of the arts and science. Writing from Rome, the Pope's private secretary, Secretary of the Briefs Ciampoli, urged Galileo to resume publication of his ideas: "If you would resolve to commit to print those ideas that you still have in mind, I am quite certain that they would be most acceptable to His Holiness, who never ceases from admiring your eminence and preserves intact his attachment for you. You should not deprive the world of your productions."

© Copyright Original Source

Galileo eventually published his book after some political maneuvering; however:

Source: Famous Trials

By late summer, Galileo's hopes turned to fears when he learned that orders had come from Rome to suspend publication of his book. On September 5, the full scope of Galileo's problems became clearer when Pope Urban told Francesco Niccolini, who had come to the Vatican to protest the suspension decision, "Your Galileo has ventured to meddle in things that he ought not and with the most grave and dangerous subjects that can be stirred up these days." Jesuit enemies of Galileo had convinced the Pope that the Dialogue was nothing but a thinly-veiled brief for the Copernican model. The Pope complained that Galileo and Ciampoli deceived him, assuring him that the book would comply with papal instructions and then circumventing them. The Pope seemed especially embittered by Galileo's decision to put the Pope's own argument concerning the tides into the mouth of the simple-minded Simplico--an attempt, as he saw it, to ridicule him.

The Pope swung the machinery of the Church into motion. He appointed a special commission to investigate the Galileo matter. Riccardi, the chief licenser, was severely lectured. Ciampoli was exiled to obscure posts, never to return to Rome.

© Copyright Original Source

Then the trial began:

Source: Famous Trials

Four days later, Galileo officially surrendered to the Holy Office and faced Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the Inquisition, and his assistants. Firenzuola informed Galileo that for the duration of the proceedings against him he would be imprisoned in the Inquisition building. After putting Galileo under oath, the Commissary deposed Galileo concerning meetings he held with Cardinal Bellarmine and other church officials in 1616. Galileo seemed to have trouble remembering who might have been present with Bellarmine on that fateful February day seventeen years earlier, as well as exactly what restrictions--if any--had been placed upon him. Firenzuola told Galileo that he had been commanded to "neither hold, defend, nor teach that [the Copernican] opinion in any way whatsoever." Galileo quibbled with the language--suggesting "I do not remember...the clause "in any way whatsoever"--, but accepted most of what the Commissary said. After a series of questions concerning the licensing of the Dialogue, Galileo signed his deposition in a shaking hand.

[...]

The trial by the Congregation moved to its conclusion. Several of the ten cardinals apparently pushed for Galileo's incarceration in prison, while those more supportive of Galileo argued that--with changes--the Dialogue ought to continue to be allowed to circulate.

http://www.famous-trials.com/galileotrial/1014-home

© Copyright Original Source

So like I've been saying, this wasn't a case of science versus religion but a political exercise by Galileo's enemies. The fact that some of the judges were in favor of the book's continued publication is proof enough of that. The changes they wanted, and which were earlier requested by Urban, were to present the heliocentric hypothesis as more speculative whereas Galileo presented it as a proven theory despite his lack of proofs.

Give it up MM. No matter your spin, you can't win!

[Tassman]

This is what we would call summary dismissal without bothering to actually evaluate. You should be aware that essentially all sources spin to some extent. Even highly biased sources, when the bias is noted, can contain useful information.

Any "useful information" from 'Answers in Genesis' is hopelessly compromised by its Apologetic agenda. It assumes its conclusions in advance...basically 'god-did-it'. It is, as it says in its website: "dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively". This is its goal, not impartial research.

[Charles]

As demonstrated by the facts, it wasn't anywhere as simple or straightforward as that.

The facts clearly demonstrate that he was blamed for contradicting the Bible's geocentric world view. It is not called simple it is called a fact. And a fact that contradicts your agenda.

[lilpixieofterror]

The facts clearly demonstrate that he was blamed for contradicting the Bible's geocentric world view. It is not called simple it is called a fact. And a fact that contradicts your agenda.

You are aware that Pope Urban VIII allowed Galileo to write his book under the condition that he gave arguments for and against the heliocentric model, right? If Galileo would have been more careful, he would have been fine. Even Wikipedia says this much, did you even bother to read a thing before you opened your mouth?

[Sparko]

I knew all that (apart from your presentation not being too exact) but did not get an answer. Can you prove Shuny wrong when he said: "It is a fact the Martin Luther and many if not most Christians believed it, as well as a literal Genesis Creation relying on the testimony of the Church Fathers."?

What Shunny pointed to was the well known fact that many people held and defended the view based on the testimony of the Church Fathers. He did not claim that the view in itself in all understandings of it would have to be religious but pointed to a fact that you are yet to adress, namely that many people held to this view and defended it because of the testimony of the Church Fathers.

who the hell is even talking about Luther? I was talking about Copernicus questioning geocentrism. it was a scientific theory that everyone believed. It was the consensus and copernicus dared question it. like scientists are supposed to do (as even JimL said)

giphy.gif

shuny's argument was a non-sequitur. just like yours.

[Mountain Man]

Give it up MM. No matter your spin, you can't win!

This is funny. Chuckles criticized me for not providing analysis. You're accusing me of spin. Why don't you guys coordinate your arguments so you're not openly contradicting each other.

[Mountain Man]

You are aware that Pope Urban VIII allowed Galileo to write his book under the condition that he gave arguments for and against the heliocentric model, right? If Galileo would have been more careful, he would have been fine. Even Wikipedia says this much, did you even bother to read a thing before you opened your mouth?

It seems he didn't even read his own source. He just cherry-picked a few quotes that he thought would support his argument and then ignored everything else. When I provided extensive quotations from the source he presented and which undermined his argument, he weakly criticized me for not providing "analysis".

[rogue06]

I knew all that (apart from your presentation not being too exact) but did not get an answer. Can you prove Shuny wrong when he said: "It is a fact the Martin Luther and many if not most Christians believed it, as well as a literal Genesis Creation relying on the testimony of the Church Fathers."?

As for the "literal Genesis creation" Luther would not have learned that from the early Church Fathers since they were all over the board on this issue. In fact he griped that Augustine, who was probably his biggest influence, along with Hilary of Poitiers, disagreed with the "literal Genesis creation" in his 1535 lecture on Genesis

"Hilary and Augustine, almost the two greatest lights of the church, hold that the world was created instantaneously and all at the same time, not successively in the course of six days."

[Charles]

This is funny. Chuckles criticized me for not providing analysis. You're accusing me of spin. Why don't you guys coordinate your arguments so you're not openly contradicting each other.

You can actually use quotations as spin since it gives the impression that quite a lot speaks in favour of your case and you can ignore the parts that do not. You have still not really confronted the quotes pointing directly to Scripture as a reason to oppose heliocentrism so perhaps you think it works?

[Charles]

You are aware that Pope Urban VIII allowed Galileo to write his book under the condition that he gave arguments for and against the heliocentric model, right? If Galileo would have been more careful, he would have been fine. Even Wikipedia says this much, did you even bother to read a thing before you opened your mouth?

Personal attacks. And none of what you have said changes the content of the quotes I provided in which it is clearly stated that heliocentrism is absurd because it contradicts the bible. Did you bother to read that? If so then what have you got to say about it?

[Charles]

who the hell is even talking about Luther? I was talking about Copernicus questioning geocentrism. it was a scientific theory that everyone believed. It was the consensus and copernicus dared question it. like scientists are supposed to do (as even JimL said)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24164[/ATTACH]

shuny's argument was a non-sequitur. just like yours.

Nope. You just misunderstood.

[Charles]

It seems he didn't even read his own source. He just cherry-picked a few quotes that he thought would support his argument and then ignored everything else. When I provided extensive quotations from the source he presented and which undermined his argument, he weakly criticized me for not providing "analysis".

There is nothing that undermines my argument in those part. The parts I quoted clearly states that part of the reason the church opposed him was because they believed he contradicted the Bible. It is what the text says. You may not like it. But that is what it says.

[Mountain Man]

You can actually use quotations as spin since it gives the impression that quite a lot speaks in favour of your case and you can ignore the parts that do not.

Oh, you mean like what you did?

You have still not really confronted the quotes pointing directly to Scripture as a reason to oppose heliocentrism so perhaps you think it works?

I think what "works"? Did you even read what you quoted? The problem wasn't that Galileo argued in favor of heliocentrism, the problem was that he insisted it was true despite the lack of proof. Remember, he had gotten permission from the Pope to publish his book, and several of the judges argued that the book should continue to be published, so the Church was obviously not staunchly opposed to exploring a competing hypothesis so long as there were facts to support it. It's likely that if Galileo had better evidence, was more humble, and didn't intentionally piss off the Pope then he wouldn't have had a problem. The Church encouraged scientific discovery; what it discouraged was scientific dogmatism.