Two Catholics Spew Lies about Galileo, Angels & Demons Starts Friday

[Galileo Galilei]

Two Catholics Spew Lies about Galileo, Angels & Demons Starts Friday

By Rolf Lindgren, Defender of Galileo

Tomorrow, Friday, May 15, Ron Howard’s new movie Angels & Demons will appear, starring Tom Hanks. This movie follows up Howard’s previous film Da Vinci Code, both based on novels by Dan Brown.

The Angels & Demons movie is under attack by a couple of Catholics, Joseph Dias of the Catholic Secular Forum with help from Bill Donahue of the USA Catholic League.

You can read their hit piece here:

Angels & Demons: Film scripted in Catholic-bashing
http://www.indiancatholic.in/news/storydetails.php/11616-1-10-Angels---Demons:-Film-scripted-in-Catholic-bashing

My short piece will identify several lies and distortions found in that article about Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). Primary author Dias does not seem to understand that Brown’s book is a novel that contains a mixture of fiction, myths, legends, and historical facts, much like the Bible is a mixture of fiction, myths, legends and historical facts. If Dias had confined himself to sticking to facts about the historical Galileo, then I would be standing mute at this time. But Dias’ lies & distortions about Galileo are presented as facts, and need to be corrected in the interests of history.

LIES ABOUT GALILEO

* Dias writes; “what got Galileo into trouble was less his ideas than his arrogance: he made claims that he could not scientifically sustain.”

This is an outright lie. Galileo turned his manuscript over to the Church for licensing. He was trying to write a book about the system of the world. The Church duly licensed his book, The Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, and certified it for publication in 1632. Then after the book was published, Galileo was arrested for writing it! This arrest had nothing to do Galileo’s arrogance and everything to do with the arrogance of Pope Urban VIII, who ordered the arrest.

* Dias writes, regarding Galileo’s Dialogue of 1632; “Quite frankly, Galileo never got into trouble before he started insisting that the Copernican system was positively true.”

Another boldfaced lie. Galileo got in trouble because the Church changed its mind after Galileo’s book was published; it is as simple as that. Galileo’s book was written as a fictional dialogue and nothing in it was presented as positively true, which is why the book was licensed in the first place. Dias also misses the idiocy of licensing a book with a very large print run for the time (1000 copies), and then trying to ban it after it is already distributed.

It should also be noted the idiocy of requiring books to be licensed in the first place, or that scientists shouldn’t publish theories that need further work before they are proven.

* Dias writes; “Moreover, he presented himself as a theologian, not simply as a mathematician, as he agreed to do.”

This is a total lie. Had Galileo written as a theologian, his book would not have been licensed. The Dialogue does not contain any Biblical or theological arguments at all. Dias has confused the Dialogue with the Galileo’s Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of 1615, which did contain Biblical arguments. In 1615, Galileo was not under any restrictions. Even these Biblical arguments were not theological, but only meta-theological.

DISTORTIONS

* Dias has not even seen Howard’s film yet. He has only seen Brown’s book. The measure of the accuracy of a movie based on a book is supposed to be how accurately it presents the contents of the book. The Dias hit piece is not a book review; it is a movie review. Dias does not know how much of Brown’s book will make it into the movie.

* Dias is all bent out of shape because Brown writes that Galileo was a member of the Illuminati. Well, no, Galileo was not a member of the Illuminati. But remember, Dias is reviewing a work of fiction. Galileo WAS a member of the Society of the Lynx-eyed, the first scientific society. These were educated gentlemen from around Europe who corresponded on scientific topics and many of their ideas were unorthodox; hence they made attempts to conceal ideas which could get them into trouble. The concept of Illuminati is loosely based on the idea of Society of the Lynx-eyed and other early scientific societies.

* Dias gets all worked up because Brown says Copernicus was murdered. This is an error by Brown. But the Church murdered Giordano Bruno in 1600 when he was burned alive at the stake. So all Brown has done is confused Bruno with Copernicus.

* Dias is upset because Brown says Galileo was a pacifist. Dias claims there is no evidence for that. But that depends on what you mean by evidence. There is no evidence that Galileo was pro-war either, and we have 3000 extant letters to, from, and about Galileo written during his lifetime. The majority of these letters were written after the Thirty Years War began in 1618.

* Dias writes; “When he says on p. 41 that Galileo’s “data were incontrovertible,” he is not even close to telling the truth.”

This is another old anti-Galileo canard that gets trotted out periodically. While Galileo did not have absolute proof he was right about the solar system, he had clear and convincing evidence. For example, the phases of Venus proved that Venus orbited the sun, not the earth. The moons of Jupiter proved that the earth was not the center of all heavenly revolutions. And the inclination of the sunspots, i.e., the different angles of rotation of spots on the sun during different times of the year was pretty close to absolute proof that the earth went a round the sun.

* Dias then zeroes in on Galileo’s ideas about the tides like many before him. Galileo reasoned that if the earth moved, then it would cause the water in the oceans to shake. Although gravitation explains most tidal phenomena, Dias seems oblivious to the fact that some tidal effects ARE caused by the uneven motion of the earth. Galileo just did not have enough data in his time to analyze and figure out the exact truth.

* Dias writes: “If Galileo was punished for maintaining that the earth revolves around the sun, then why wasn’t Copernicus punished? After all, Copernicus broached this idea before Galileo toyed with it, and like Galileo, he was also a Catholic. The difference is that Copernicus was an honest scientist: he was content to state his ideas in the form of a hypothesis. Galileo refused to do so, even though he could not prove his hypothesis.”

This is a distortion that borders on libel. Is Dias here claiming that Galileo was dishonest? It sounds like it to me.

* Dias writes; “Quite frankly, Galileo never got into trouble before he started insisting that the Copernican system was positively true. When he first agreed to treat it as a hypothesis, or as a mathematical proposition, he suffered not a whit.”

This is a double distortion. We have already covered that Galileo’s book was written as a fictional dialogue and licensed. Dias does not mention that in 1616, the Church issued a decree, restricting what Galileo was allowed to write about. This was long before his Dialogue was published in 1632.

* Dias writes; “It is easy for us today to say that the Church overreacted in its treatment of Galileo. This is true. But it is also important to note that he was never tortured and never spent a day in prison. He was confined to house arrest in a modest home for nine years.”

The first part of this citation is the understatement of the century. Had Galileo not been able to get his ideas out, we might never have had the Scientific Revolution. The second part doesn’t mention that Galileo was threatened with torture and lost his liberty for the rest of his life.

* Dias thumps his chest because Pope Benedict XIV granted an imprimatur on Galileo’s complete works in 1741. Attentive readers might notice that this is 99 years after Galileo died, and it didn’t do Galileo much good. Dias also forgets to tell us that The Dialogue was not removed from the Index of prohibited books until 1835. That means other Catholic book publishers could not re-publish Galileo’s Dialogue. If you couldn’t get your hands on the 1741 edition, you were SOL.

CONCLUSION

Expect the attacks on Galileo and Angels & Demons to continue. Galileo did not get a fair trial in 1633 by any stretch of the imagination. Galileo was railroaded into “recanting”. Galileo was stifled, but not his ideas. The ideas of modern science spread throughout the world, triggering the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution. We are all the better for it.

WATCH THE ANGELS & DEMONS MOVIE TRAILER:
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b105625_angels_demons_more_backlash_from_vatican.h tml

DID GALILEO GALILEI GET A FAIR TRIAL?

(Even by the standards of his time)

To find out, please click here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123587

[Gary]

Galileo,
I thought this was a curious topic to post here as the topic seems somewhat variant from the political topics usually posted here. I suspect you and I are the only ones who have ever spent any time at all reading about Galileo and his run-ins with the church.

I have not read Dias's article, but based on your quotes, it sounds like his position is too anti-Galileo. As you know, the real situation was much more muddy.

As you know, Galileo tended towards arrogance, but I agree this is not what got him in trouble officially. His astronomy discoveries early on certainly did not, as the pope was in fact very much interested in his work. While he believed that he had proven out Copernicus's theories, many scientists of his day were skeptical of his proofs. Still what got his book in trouble in 1632 was perhaps because one of the characters seemed to be painting the pope in a bad light, which perhaps help lead to the official excomunication.

I think the church today would agree with you that Galileo did not get the fairest of trials in 1633, so you probably won't find too many people to argue against on this point. You might have missed it, but the Vatical recently spoke highly of how Galileo integrated his faith and science. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that Galileo was personally responsible for starting the scientific revolution though.

The struggle with reading Dan Brown's stuff is that he is so loosey-goosey with the facts. Some are true, some are partially true, and others are completely made up. The problem is trying to fact-check every last thing. An engineer acquaintance of mine who read and enjoyed The Da Vince Code found one of his other novels, a high-tech thriller whose name escapes me, too difficult to read because Brown constantly bungled his facts on high-tech. I suspect Brown doesn't worry the least in letting facts get in the way of the story he wants to tell. The problem is when people believe his errors as fact.

Having never read Angels & Demons, I can't say myself, but my understanding is that it continues to perpetrate the lie that the church is anti-science. While everyone holds up the Galileo case as proof, it is interesting that there are never offered any other meaningful examples. Copernicus was himself a churchman. Many Jesuit priests were also astronomers, and in fact the tops of Cathedrals were used as observatories. Mendel, the father of genetics was a monk. LeMatraie, the first person to propose the Big Bang theory, was a priest. All of these and many others were encouraged by the church, not persecuted. But alas, people love to cling to the popular myth that the Catholic Church is against science.

[Galileo Galilei]

Galileo,
I thought this was a curious topic to post here as the topic seems somewhat variant from the political topics usually posted here. I suspect you and I are the only ones who have ever spent any time at all reading about Galileo and his run-ins with the church.

I have not read Dias's article, but based on your quotes, it sounds like his position is too anti-Galileo. As you know, the real situation was much more muddy.

As you know, Galileo tended towards arrogance, but I agree this is not what got him in trouble officially. His astronomy discoveries early on certainly did not, as the pope was in fact very much interested in his work. While he believed that he had proven out Copernicus's theories, many scientists of his day were skeptical of his proofs. Still what got his book in trouble in 1632 was perhaps because one of the characters seemed to be painting the pope in a bad light, which perhaps help lead to the official excomunication.

Supposedly, the Pope reacted angrily against Galileo because one of his favorite arguments was put into the miuth of the fool. This was the argument that no matter what you observe, God, being all powerful, could create phenomena in any way he liked.

There are several problems with this thesis.

1)

The "fool" in Galileo's Dialogue was not really a fool. He actually made all the standard geocentric arguments o the time.

2)

The passage was not in Galileo's original draft, the censors requied that Galileo put it in.

3)

The Pope would have better off to ignore the passage than pick a fight with Galileo. Few people associated the argument with Pope Urban. In fact, the argument was an old one, and had already appeared in Galileo's book the Assayer in 1623.

4)

In 1623, Galileo went down to Rome to discuss with the Pope his new book he wanted to write, and they discussed it at length. Galileo then went to Rome again in 1630 to discuss the almost complete work. The reality is, the Pope seems to have changed his mind for political reasons. By 1632, the Thirty Years War had heated up, and in 1625, the Pope had seized the Duchy of Urbino from Florence (Galileo's patron).

According to the biography of Galileo written by Thomas Salusbury in 1665, and lost since the 1830s (rediscovered last year), the Pope took out Galileo for political reasons, as a way to attack the city of Florence.

5)

Another issue was the issue of whether Galileo's science would upset the faithful. It seems likely that the Pope's argument that God could create phenomena any way he liked, was merely put in the book to mollify the faithful, it was maybe not really believed by the Pope. The record shows that Galileo, too, was sensitive to these concerns.

6)

Pope Urban VIII was an old friend and fan of Galileo's. The whole thing could have been a set-up. Pope VIII turned into a modrrn day Judas Iscariot.




I think the church today would agree with you that Galileo did not get the fairest of trials in 1633, so you probably won't find too many people to argue against on this point. You might have missed it, but the Vatical recently spoke highly of how Galileo integrated his faith and science. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that Galileo was personally responsible for starting the scientific revolution though.

The struggle with reading Dan Brown's stuff is that he is so loosey-goosey with the facts. Some are true, some are partially true, and others are completely made up. The problem is trying to fact-check every last thing. An engineer acquaintance of mine who read and enjoyed The Da Vince Code found one of his other novels, a high-tech thriller whose name escapes me, too difficult to read because Brown constantly bungled his facts on high-tech. I suspect Brown doesn't worry the least in letting facts get in the way of the story he wants to tell. The problem is when people believe his errors as fact.

Having never read Angels & Demons, I can't say myself, but my understanding is that it continues to perpetrate the lie that the church is anti-science. While everyone holds up the Galileo case as proof, it is interesting that there are never offered any other meaningful examples. Copernicus was himself a churchman. Many Jesuit priests were also astronomers, and in fact the tops of Cathedrals were used as observatories. Mendel, the father of genetics was a monk. LeMatraie, the first person to propose the Big Bang theory, was a priest. All of these and many others were encouraged by the church, not persecuted. But alas, people love to cling to the popular myth that the Catholic Church is against science.

Pope praises Galileo's astronomy
Pope Benedict had been accused of condoning the heresy charge

Pope Benedict XVI has paid tribute to 17th-Century astronomer Galileo Galilei, whose scientific theories once drew the wrath of the Catholic Church.

The Pope was speaking at events marking the 400th anniversary of Galileo's earliest observations with a telescope.

He said an understanding of the laws of nature could stimulate appreciation of God's work.

MORE:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=172990

I have only read the parts of Dan Brown's books that mention Galileo. Those parts are true to the spirit of Galileo, and reasonably accurate as to the facts.

[Galileo Galilei]

Any student of revolution, whether it be the Ron Paul revolution, or the Scientific revolution, should see this film.

The War upon Galileo

On this new champion, Galileo, the whole war was at last concentrated. His discoveries had clearly taken the Copernican theory out of the list of hypotheses, and had placed it before the world as a truth. Against him, then, the war was long and bitter. The supporters of what was called ``sound learning'' declared his discoveries deceptions and his announcements blasphemy. Semi-scientific professors, endeavouring to curry favour with the Church, attacked him with sham science; earnest preachers attacked him with perverted Scripture; theologians, inquisitors, congregations of cardinals, and at last two popes dealt with him, and, as was supposed, silenced his impious doctrine forever.

I shall present this warfare at some length because, so far as I can find, no careful summary of it has been given in our language, since the whole history was placed in a new light by the revelations of the trial documents in the Vatican Library, honestly published for the first time by L'Epinois in 1867, and since that by Gebler, Berti, Favaro, and others.

The first important attack on Galileo began in 1610, when he announced that his telescope had revealed the moons of the planet Jupiter. The enemy saw that this took the Copernican theory out of the realm of hypothesis, and they gave battle immediately. They denounced both his method and its results as absurd and impious. As to his method, professors bred in the ``safe science'' favoured by the Church argued that the divinely appointed way of arriving at the truth in astronomy was by theological reasoning on texts of Scripture; and, as to his results, they insisted, first, that Aristotle knew nothing of these new revelations; and, next, that the Bible showed by all applicable types that there could be only seven planets; that this was proved by the seven golden candlesticks of the Apocalypse, by the seven-branched candlestick of the tabernacle, and by the seven churches of Asia; that from Galileo's doctrine consequences must logically result destructive to Christian truth. Bishops and priests therefore warned their flocks, and multitudes of the faithful besought the Inquisition to deal speedily and sharply with the heretic.

READ THE REST:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/astronomy/war.html

[Freedom 4 all]

It never ceases to amaze me how retardedly worked up people get over historical inaccuracy (or perceived historical inaccuracy) in works of FICTION.

[Galileo Galilei]

Angels & Demons beat out Star Wars for the # 1 movie this weekend!

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/

[Gary]

the Pope took out Galileo for political reasons, as a way to attack the city of Florence.

I'll be honest, I've never heard this one before.


His discoveries had clearly taken the Copernican theory out of the list of hypotheses, and had placed it before the world as a truth. Against him, then, the war was long and bitter. The supporters of what was called ``sound learning'' declared his discoveries deceptions and his announcements blasphemy. Semi-scientific professors, endeavouring to curry favour with the Church, attacked him with sham science; earnest preachers attacked him with perverted Scripture
It's interesting that LeMatraie suffered similar accusations against him by scientists clinging to athiestic "scripture" if you will. His theories on the origin of the universe were not attacked based on sound science (which was on his side), but because he was a Catholic priest. The atheistic doctrine at the time was that the universe was static and existed without beginning. To accept a beginning was to accept a beginner of the universe, so the theory was rejected as sounding too Christian!


Any student of revolution, whether it be the Ron Paul revolution, or the Scientific revolution, should see this film.

Which film?

[andrewh817]

Next the Catholic church will be saying Tom Hanks is the Anti-christ..............

Haven't these old fools lost their credibility yet?

[Galileo Galilei]

I'll be honest, I've never heard this one before.


It's interesting that LeMatraie suffered similar accusations against him by scientists clinging to athiestic "scripture" if you will. His theories on the origin of the universe were not attacked based on sound science (which was on his side), but because he was a Catholic priest. The atheistic doctrine at the time was that the universe was static and existed without beginning. To accept a beginning was to accept a beginner of the universe, so the theory was rejected as sounding too Christian!


Which film?

Angels & Demons. I saw it last night and it was pretty good, and above average thriller with some intellectual content.

The Pope got very angry and had Galileo arrested. Close inspection of the Pope's behaviour and his reason for anger seem a little irrational and suspicious to me.

[Galileo Galilei]

Next the Catholic church will be saying Tom Hanks is the Anti-christ..............

Haven't these old fools lost their credibility yet?

The film was not anti-Catholic, I saw it. Any film that helps get the word out on Galileo is doing good.

[Gary]

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewh817
Next the Catholic church will be saying Tom Hanks is the Anti-christ..............

Haven't these old fools lost their credibility yet?

The people who wrote about A&D that Galileo was complaining about happen to be Catholic; they do not speak for the Catholic Church. The Catholic church ordinarily only speaks through ecumenical councils (such as Vatican II), although obviously what the pope and bishops have to say carry some weight.


The film was not anti-Catholic, I saw it. Any film that helps get the word out on Galileo is doing good.
I probably won't be seeing the movie. As I said previously, Dan Brown tends to mangle his facts so substantially that it is difficult to figure out what is true, what is partially true, and what is simply made up. I'd rather not spend any time trying to untangle such a mess. I presume you could relate to that given your study of Galileo. I'm not much of a movie-goer anyway.

[Gary]

The Pope got very angry and had Galileo arrested.
This seems to be of little dispute. In any case, it had little to do with science per se.

I'm sure you have read about Robert Bellarmine as well. By all accounts, he was friendly with Galileo and had the unhappy task of dealing with him in 1616. Bellarmine is a fascinating figure because he also strongly influenced thought in so many other areas. His writings on freedom and rights are echoed in the Declaration of Independence.

[Galileo Galilei]

This seems to be of little dispute. In any case, it had little to do with science per se.

I'm sure you have read about Robert Bellarmine as well. By all accounts, he was friendly with Galileo and had the unhappy task of dealing with him in 1616. Bellarmine is a fascinating figure because he also strongly influenced thought in so many other areas. His writings on freedom and rights are echoed in the Declaration of Independence.

Bellarmine also helped Giordano Bruno get burned at the stake in 1600.

The events of 1615 and 1616 (sometimes called Galileo's first trail) were in fact about the battle between science and religion. Science lost. Bellarmine won.

The 1633 was about obedience to the power of the State.

[Gary]

Bruno was a pantheist who was excommunicated by Lutherans, Calvinists, and Catholics for his theological beliefs. Bruno was not a scientist, and probably embraced Copernican views to the extent they fit his own theological views. He knew what he was getting into in his inquisition and frankly probably chose the outcome. He was handed over to secular authority, who burned him at the stake. Handing over heretics had been an accepted practice for centuries at that time. Although I think we all would say today that execution was extreme, it was obviously considered justified at the time. I might add that today many people think the execution of innocent unborn children is acceptable, but this just goes to show that well-meaning people can be wrong.

Have you ever actually read what Bellarmine said in 1616? Science in fact did win then. Bellarmine instructed Galileo not to teach Copernicism as proven fact, which it was not at the time. Bellarmine had no issue with proposing it as theory. He even noted that if it was proven, then the interpretation of scripture would have to be reconsidered. It seems to me he was hardly arguing against the pursuit of science. Surely you are not arguing that a scientific theory should be stated as fact when it is not yet proven?

Bellarmine was a true friend of freedom, and also a friend of truth.
“All men are equal, not in wisdom or grace, but in the essence and nature of mankind” (“De Laicis,” c.7) “There is no reason why among equals one should rule rather than another” (ibid.). “Let rulers remember that they preside over men who are of the same nature as they themselves.” (“De Officus Princ.” c. 22).

“It depends upon the consent of the multitude to constitute over itself a king, consul, or other magistrate. This power is, indeed, from God, but vested in a particular ruler by the counsel and election of men” (“De Laicis, c. 6, notes 4 and 5). “The people themselves immediately and directly hold the political power” (“De Clericis,” c. 7)

“For legitimate reasons the people can change the government to an aristocracy or a democracy or vice versa” (“De Laicis,” c. 6). “The people never transfers its powers to a king so completely but that it reserves to itself the right of receiving back this power” (“Recognitio de Laicis,” c. 6).

Thanks by the way for the discussion. You continue to help shed light on this rather complex topic.

[Galileo Galilei]

Bruno was a pantheist who was excommunicated by Lutherans, Calvinists, and Catholics for his theological beliefs. Bruno was not a scientist, and probably embraced Copernican views to the extent they fit his own theological views. He knew what he was getting into in his inquisition and frankly probably chose the outcome. He was handed over to secular authority, who burned him at the stake. Handing over heretics had been an accepted practice for centuries at that time. Although I think we all would say today that execution was extreme, it was obviously considered justified at the time. I might add that today many people think the execution of innocent unborn children is acceptable, but this just goes to show that well-meaning people can be wrong.

Have you ever actually read what Bellarmine said in 1616? Science in fact did win then. Bellarmine instructed Galileo not to teach Copernicism as proven fact, which it was not at the time. Bellarmine had no issue with proposing it as theory. He even noted that if it was proven, then the interpretation of scripture would have to be reconsidered. It seems to me he was hardly arguing against the pursuit of science. Surely you are not arguing that a scientific theory should be stated as fact when it is not yet proven?

Bellarmine was a true friend of freedom, and also a friend of truth.
“All men are equal, not in wisdom or grace, but in the essence and nature of mankind” (“De Laicis,” c.7) “There is no reason why among equals one should rule rather than another” (ibid.). “Let rulers remember that they preside over men who are of the same nature as they themselves.” (“De Officus Princ.” c. 22).

“It depends upon the consent of the multitude to constitute over itself a king, consul, or other magistrate. This power is, indeed, from God, but vested in a particular ruler by the counsel and election of men” (“De Laicis, c. 6, notes 4 and 5). “The people themselves immediately and directly hold the political power” (“De Clericis,” c. 7)

“For legitimate reasons the people can change the government to an aristocracy or a democracy or vice versa” (“De Laicis,” c. 6). “The people never transfers its powers to a king so completely but that it reserves to itself the right of receiving back this power” (“Recognitio de Laicis,” c. 6).

Thanks by the way for the discussion. You continue to help shed light on this rather complex topic.

I'm sorry, but Bellarmine's involvement with the persecutions of Bruno and Galileo make him a poor choice to trot out as a defender of freedom. I don't think he did anything to defend Tomasso Campanella either.

I have read extensively about Bellarmine in 1616.

The idea that you have to absolutely prove something before you can talk about it makes no sense at all and is anti-freedom. What about Plato and other philosophers? They didn't prove anything, they just had provocative ideas.

Also, Bellarmine totally twisted the results of the Council of Trent. According to the Council of Trent, the Church Fathers were only authoritative in matters regarding salvation & morals. Galileo's ideas about the universe did not fall into that catagory. But Bellarmine, like politicians today who twist the Constitution, twisted the Council of Trent and claimed that everything in the Bible was about salvation and morals.

Your comments on Bruno are also a little off-base. No, Bruno was not a scientist, but he was a natural philosopher. Most of his offbeat theological views flow from his natural philosophy.

Also, an exchange of letters between Bellarmine and Paolo Antonio Foscarini has been preserved. Foscarini was a defender of Galileo who wrote a short book in 1615 showing how to blend the ideas of Galileo & Copernicus with the Bible. Bellarmine's statements in this affair do not lend him to the ranks of defenders of freedom.

Foscarini disappeared in 1616 and was never heard from again.

"He [Bellarmine] even noted that if it was proven, then the interpretation of scripture would have to be reconsidered."

Wow! You don't say! Brilliant!

"Surely you are not arguing that a scientific theory should be stated as fact when it is not yet proven?"

err, what exactly are you talking about? Galileo's Dialogue of 1632 did not state anything as fact, it was a fictional dialogue. That's why they call it the dialogue.

Galileo's pre-1616 books were the Starry Messenger of 1610 where he reported a bunch of astonishing facts about the solar system that he discovered with his telescopes, and had few opinions.

Galilieo's book in 1607 was about a military compass and how to use it.

Galileo's book in 1612 was about bodies floating on water, properties that he discovered, and updates on his astronomical discoveries.

Galileo's 1613 book was a reprint of his letters on sunspots. Someone took letters that he had written and published them, Galileo did not know when he wrote them they would end up in a book. The book mostly describes his obsevations of sunspots, and I have read all these books.

Frankly, Galileo did not give many opinions at all in his pre-1616 books, unlike almost every other author of the time.

You also forget to tell us what "proof" is and who decides it.

Galileo had a preponderance of evidence that he was right and the earth went around thwe sun by 1616.

He got even more evidence later, when he discovered the inclination of the sunspots, i.e., the spots rotate around the sun at different angle at different times of the year. It is almost impossible to reconsile this with a geocentric earth, especially if you have heard of Occam's Razor.

Also, by the time of the Dialogue, Kepler had published his planetary tables, which for many people was decisive evidence.

Galileo also demonstarted mechanically why objects did not fly off the earth's surface and introduced concepts like inertia, relative motion, and composite forces.

[Gary]

Galileo had a preponderance of evidence that he was right and the earth went around thwe sun by 1616.
Obviously Galileo was right. That was less obvious in 1616. He had not proved it, nor did he have consensus by other reputable scientists.

In 1616 Galileo was not told to not talk about heliocentric models. He could freely talk of it without fear of reprisal from the church. He was advised not to state anything as factual that could not be proven as factual.


According to the Council of Trent, the Church Fathers were only authoritative in matters regarding salvation & morals.
The issue was the authority of sacred scripture, not the Church Fathers.

Back to the original topic of A&D. Here is a writer who took some time correcting some of Dan Brown's factual errors. I have not taken the time to read them.

http://decentfilms.com/sections/articles/fact-checking-brown.html

[NYgs23]

The Galileo affair was more complicated than the Black Legend propagandists like to make out. Galileo had started proclaiming an unproven theory as fact, and Scripture was being dragged into it. This was at a time was the Church was in the midst of the Catholic Reformation, trying to clean up corruption and heterodoxy in response to the Protestants. Obviously, the prosecution of Galileo for his agitation was anti-free speech and therefore aggressive and wrong. It is somewhat akin to people in Germany being imprisoned for Holocaust denial today. Nonetheless, the portrayal of the matter as "the Great Enlightenment vs. Dark Age ignorance" is nonsense.

[Galileo Galilei]

The Galileo affair was more complicated than the Black Legend propagandists like to make out. Galileo had started proclaiming an unproven theory as fact, and Scripture was being dragged into it.



This is a distortion. Galileo was saying it was fact in private conversations, but not in his books. But after the decree of 1616, Galileo obeyed the Church and stopped doing that. This all happened 17 years before his trial.



This was at a time was the Church was in the midst of the Catholic Reformation, trying to clean up corruption and heterodoxy in response to the Protestants. Obviously, the prosecution of Galileo for his agitation was anti-free speech and therefore aggressive and wrong. It is somewhat akin to people in Germany being imprisoned for Holocaust denial today. Nonetheless, the portrayal of the matter as "the Great Enlightenment vs. Dark Age ignorance" is nonsense.

The portrayal as enlightenment vs ignorance is accurate. Galileo, along with Kepler, provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they were correct. The Church was demanding an absolute proof. As you know, this is basically impossible, as only in mathematics can you make an absolute proof of anything.

It simply took a few years for the radical truth to sink in. By 1651, almost all astronomers in Europe agreed with Galileo and Kepler.

In fact, young Isaac Newton, while in college in the early 1660s, was taught the theories of Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus as truth.

EVIDENCE MARSHALLED BY GALILEO & KEPLER

1) Kepler's law of planetary motion, they go around the sun in elliptical orbits (announced 1605, published 1609), based on the observations of Tycho.

2) Kepler's law that planets sweep out equal areas in equal times (published 1609).

3) Kepler's law, the time of revolution squared is proportional to the distanse from the sun cubed (published 1619).

4) Kepler's planetary tables appeared in 1627.

NOTE - IT IS SOMETIMES SAID THAT GALILEO IGNORED KEPLER'S LAWS. THE TRUTH IS THAT GALILEO KNEW THEM, BUT WAS AFRAID TO CITE THE WORKS OF A PROTESTANT. THIS IS, OF COURSE, YET ANOTHER ROADBLOCK THE CHURCH PUT UP AGAINST SCIENCE.

Galileo confirmed Kepler with his telescope in many ways.

5) The moons of Jupiter proved that the sun was not the center of all heavenly revolutions.

6) The phases of Venus proved that Venus went around the sun.

7) The inclination of sunspots provided clear and covincing evidence that the earth went around the sun.

8) Galileo demonstrated why objects did not fly off the face of the earth using principles of inertia, relative motion, law of parabolic motion, and law of composition of forces.

9) Another critical discovery, Galileo proved that stars and planets were different. He proved that planets when magnified showed a solid disk, while stars did not. This proved that stars were much farther away from earth than the planets by an order of magnitude of at least 1000 and possibly more. This was an explanation for the lack of parallax among stars, they are too far away for the parallax to be measured.

Galileo alone had clear and convincing evidence that he was correct. Supplimented with Kepler, they had proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The reality is Galileo & Kepler had proof, but people just refused to believe it. This is no different than today. Dr. David Ray Griffin has proven that 9/11 was an inside job, and still people refuse to believe it.

[Galileo Galilei]

Obviously Galileo was right. That was less obvious in 1616. He had not proved it, nor did he have consensus by other reputable scientists.

In 1616 Galileo was not told to not talk about heliocentric models. He could freely talk of it without fear of reprisal from the church. He was advised not to state anything as factual that could not be proven as factual.


The issue was the authority of sacred scripture, not the Church Fathers.

Back to the original topic of A&D. Here is a writer who took some time correcting some of Dan Brown's factual errors. I have not taken the time to read them.

http://decentfilms.com/sections/articles/fact-checking-brown.html

The article you cite by Greydanus is loaded with distortion and lies.

Examples

1) Greydanus writes:

"Quick, how did Copernicus die?

Dan Brown readers “know” the answer: “Outspoken scientists like Copernicus” were “murdered by the church for revealing scientific truths,” according to a tag-team history lesson by Harvard “symbolist” Robert Langdon and CERN director Maximilian Kohler in Angels & Demons, the predecessor to Brown’s blockbuster sequel, The Da Vinci Code."

As I stated in my original post, Brown has merely confused Copernicus with Giordano Bruno. Bruno was murdered by the Church.

Also, fictional characters in a fictional book would be expected to not speak like an expert. In real life, people confuce things like this. I would be unrealistic for fictional characters to always be 100% accurate regarding historical facts.

2)

This auther, like Dias in the original post, is absolutley bent out of shape because Brown says that Galileo was a memebr of the Illuminati. But Galileo was a member of the Society of the Lynx-eyed, who did have some secret correspondence. Brown chose the illuminati because the word has vast conspiratorial overtones. If the society was truly secret, how would a historian know about it today?

Also, many books of fiction work on other works of fiction. One famous book on the Illuminati is the Illuminatus Trilogy by Robert Shea & Robert Anton Wilson, that came out in 1975.

3)

The author cites a book from 1886 by Charles Chiniquy. Frankly, I have been reading about Galileo for 24 years, including over 60 books, and have never heard of this guy. So why he is all of a sudden relevant in 2009 is beyond me.

4)

The author again makes a big deal that Galileo was not tortured. But Galileo was "in his 70th year" and in bad health and was threatened with torture. He would have been torured had he not "recanted".

The fact is, Galileo proved he was innocent of the original charges at his trial, and then pleaded guilty to an even worse charge. Does this make any sense to anyone?

5) Greydanus writes:

"Brown depicts CERN scientists routinely petitioning the Vatican for “apologies for Copernicus and Galileo.” In the case of Copernicus, the only conceivable response would be “For what?” Even Galileo, almost the only shred of fact in the anti-Catholic master myth of the Church’s persecution of scientists, has been both distorted beyond recognition in popular imagination and misrepresented as archetypal rather than exceptional"

OK, after the death of Copernicus he was slandered, how about an apology for that? And there are many other natural philosophers who were persecuted, including Bruno (murdered), Tomasso Campanella (put in a dungeon for 30 years), Foscarini (murdered), and Descartes (fled to the Netherlands and failed to publish his book on the system of the world).

6) Greydanus writes:

"Brown expoits and reinforces this misperception, claiming that Galileo was convicted of heresy (in fact the finding was not heresy, but “vehemently suspect of heresy”) and was “almost executed” (nothing of the sort was ever in question) for “daring to imply that God had placed mankind somewhere other than at the center of His universe.”"

We already covered how Galileo was threatened with torture which could likely have killed him.

The term "vehement suspicion of heresy", which Galileo is convicted of, was INDEED a legal & serious form of heresy.

It is sort of like being convicted today of conspiracy to commit first degree murder. It is treated legally as a form of murder and has penalties the same as for murder. So Greydanus does not know what he is talking about. He is trying to dupe you and fool you with either ignorance or deception.

7) Greydanus writes:

"Brown shamelessly transposes a philosophical blind spot affecting Galileo himself to his critics, representing ecclesiastical authorities as insisting that heavenly bodies must move in perfect circular orbits and therefore attacking Galileo for daring to propose elliptical orbits. Actually, it was Galileo himself — not church authorities — who esteemed the perfection of circular orbits, and rejected the notion of elliptically orbiting heavenly bodies. (This wasn’t Galileo’s only mistake, scientific or otherwise. For more, see The Galileo Controversy.)"

This accusation that Galileo somehow worshipped perfect circles is a bold-faced lie.

First of all, Galileo remarked in his letters that planets traveled in ovals.

Second, Galileo feared citing a protestant, Kepler. This was especially true after the decree of 1616 and the 30 years war that began in 1618. Galileo's book published in 1632 was not about to cite the controversial findings of a protestant!

Third, Galileo was not someone who sat around the drew up planetary tables, as there were already many others doing that (exception - he drew them up for the moons fo Jupiter, because no one else was doing that, but Kepler. And Kepler was unable to solve it, the times of revolution, Galileo did).

Galileo focused on stuff that no one else was doing. His book in 1632, the Dialogue, shows circles for the planets. But the eccentricity of the planets was so small, like .09 or something like that, that is was not easy to detect with the naked eye. Whether the planets had circular of .09 eccentric ellipitcal orbits had little or nothing to do with the topic of Galileo's book in 1632.

Also, if Kepler was right about the ellipses, then that means Galileo was right that the earth moved around the sun. So the auther is saying there wasn't proof that Copernicus was right, and at the same time, is blaming Galileo for not citing evidence, that if taken at face value, proves Copernicus was correct!