Skip to main content

And in order that this your grave and pernicious error and transgression may not remain altogether unpunished and that you may be more cautious in the future and an example to others that they may abstain from similar delinquencies, we ordain that the book of the "Dialogues of Galileo Galilei" be prohibited by public edict.

We condemn you to the formal prison of this Holy office during our pleasure, and by way of salutary penance we enjoin that for three years to come you repeat once a week at the seven penitential Psalms. Reserving to ourselves liberty to moderate, commute or take off, in whole or in part, the aforesaid penalties and penance.

And so we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, ordain, and reserve in this [and in] any other better way and form which we can and may rightfully employ.

-Papal condemnation of Galileo Galilei.

On June 22, 1633, Galileo was forced to recant.

For Erich Maria Remarque, born on June 22, 1898, whose life should be taught with his most famous book.

Gotta love any society in which science is seen as a dangerous thing. As I have argued elsewhere, and as I will continue to argue where relevant and necessary, the danger is not in the science but in the people who will abuse it.

Another argument I have used elsewhere, by way of comparing detainment and torture practices, is that the Bush administration is worse than the Church was.

In this instance, however, the Church was obviously worse in its censorship of Galilei than the Bush administration has been in its censorship of scientists pushing global warming (and the Big Bang, and evolution, and the third law of thermodynamics, and the use of functional levees when hurricanes are about to strike, and the medical use of marijuana, and the effectiveness of abstinence-only education, and ...).

I have always been fascinated by the view that people need to be controlled very tightly, very strictly, or they will abandon all form of civilization and live alone, stewing in their filth and heresy. (Actually, in most of the Christian world, they lived together in their filth for over a thousand years, but that's neither here nor there.) People with power are, understandably, loathe to give it up. But what constitutes giving it up is just fascinating.

In this case, promoting a view in which the Bible could not be relied upon as the world's most valuable science book (a science book has footnotes and references and a listed author. Also, pictures) was very dangerous, just as the Bush administration has needed (they owe some people for some ... things ... in some states) to pay back people who fought hard to get the president appointed and then elected.

So James Hansen has been censored (registration required) by this administration:

He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.

But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.

In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, Dr. Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet."

He said he was particularly incensed that the directives had come through telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents.

Dr. Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up." But Dr. Einaudi added, "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied."

Galileo, on the other hand, for advocating a 1900-year-old position that the Church only in 1992 officially supported (though by that point, it was kind of a given), was censored completely. He was not allowed to discuss heliocentrism in public.



Wait, you didn't know heliocentrism was older than the Church?

Aristarchus of Samos, born 310 B.C., a whole eighteen hundred years before Copernicus[, was the first to claim that the Earth goes around the sun].

Not only did Aristarchus suggest the [E]arth and planets traveled around the sun, he also calculated the relative sizes and distances of the [E]arth, moon, and sun and worked out that the heavens were not a celestial sphere, but a universe of almost infinite size.

-The Book of General Ignorance

(I am not in love with the book — it, as the Bible, lacks footnotes — but that information is corroborated elsewhere, at least.)

Galileo was not the first Renaissance scientist to challenge the Church's doctrine (as opposed to scholarship) that the Earth was the center of all that was:

In 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus published Revolutions of the Celestial Orbs, a treatise that put forth his revolutionary idea that the [s]un was at the center of the universe and that the Earth--rotating on an axis--orbited around the sun once a year.  Copernicus' theory was a challenge to the accepted notion contained in the natural philosophy of Aristotle, the astronomy of Ptolemy and the teachings of the Church that the sun and all the stars revolved around a stationary Earth.

Beyond all the calculations, beyond the gravitational reasons (which also explain the tides), beyond all the super sciency stuff that is understandably beyond the reach of your average nonscientist, there's a really easy way to show that Earth can't be the center of it all:

If it is, Mars moves forward ever more slowly, then stops and goes backward, then becomes harder to see, then gets easier to see, then ... etc.:

In the geocentric frame, however, the trajectory of Mars looks a lot like a cardioïd (cf third simulation). Mars goes in one direction, goes backwards (thus the word "retrogradation "), then moves in its initial direction again.

But this was of no concern to the Church. See, when you have already decided on the facts, you do not then need to bother explaining them. (I'm not even being farcical here. Geocentrism, as practiced back in the day, was fundamentally part of a belief system, the base of which was that the Bible contained all knowledge and was inerrant. Geocentrism was pragmatically doctrine.) You just say that the Earth is at center, and everything else is orbiting it (no word on how they explained how Mars didn't get eaten by the sun). And you draw your geocentric map, and you have done with it, because nobody much is actually going to chart Mars' movement and ask why it's going backward, how you explain that scientifically ("God works in mysterious ways. Now eat your bread."), etc.

The bigger question, really, is why the Church would censor a scientist. The answer? Power (bolding mine):

Aware of the move against him, Galileo wrote to a friend, Monsignor Dini, asking that his letters be forwarded to the influential Cardinal Bellarmine, the Church's chief theologian, and--if it could be arranged--Pope Paul V.  Unfortunately for Galileo, the seventy-four-year old Cardinal Bellarmine "was no friend of novelties"  (although, unlike some of Galileo's other detractors, he had at least looked through a telescope and given--in 1611--an audience to Galileo).  In his innate conservatism he saw the Copernican universe as threatening to the social order.  To Bellarmine and much of the Church's upper echelon, the science of the matter was beyond their understanding--and in many cases their interest.  They cared about administration and preserving the power of the papal superstate more than they did getting astronomical facts right.

Or, spinning things, we can't just have elite scientists publishing books that advocate sun-based models for the solar system, after all. That goes against what we've been teaching is true based on this "only book you'll ever need" manuscript, that Bible thing.

And we've already put together a Bible-as-encyclopedia package deal. It separates out the passages that deal with:

  1. Ceremonial Burial (casting lots for someone's garments; what to expect on the second third day)
  1. Cooking (how to turn your wife into a year's supply of salt; why bacon is bad; feeding thousands of people with your friend John's lunch)
  1. Etiquette ("Dear Miss Manners: I recently got some nasty gashes in my feet. May I use this as an excuse to wear socks with my sandals?")
  1. First Aid (what to do if someone gets his ear cut off; how to cure blindness; what you do if someone falls asleep listening to you, falls off his perch and dies)
  1. History (begettings; wars; what was in the beginning)
  1. History of Education ("Did you not know I would be at my father's house?"; "Do not eat from the tree of knowledge, lest you feel the need to cover your penis with a leaf that's a lot longer than it needs to be.")
  1. Psychology ("You might be absolutely nuts if you think God is telling you to kill your child")
  1. Science (bats as birds; how to bury your waste so your enemy doesn't know you've been there; where plagues are likely)
  1. Tourism (what to do if your house guests are offended; when to visit Jerusalem [hint: not in the winter])
  1. Worst-Case Scenarios ("You're nailed to a piece of wood. You're bleeding, and you feel faint, but most importantly, you're wearing only your underwear. What DO you DO?"; what to do if a whale eats you; how to react when you are invited to walk on water)
  1. X-Z

It also includes two bonus sections:

A) Who's Who of People With no Parents (Shem's, Ham's, and Japeth's wives)
B) Paul's Letters to Civilizations That Never Wrote Back

We've already printed copies. What are we going to do, tell little Johann "Hans" Gutenberg Jr. that his father's hard work has all been for naught?



And the amazing thing is that Galileo, after his first attempt at educating The Powers That Be failed, just went on with his work, resigned to the fact that the Church's oligarchy was more interested in doctrine than discussion. He still had work to do, and he did it.

And then he got some hope. He was invited to write a book that explored arguments for the Bible-based model and the science-based model, but he was required to present the science only as a hypothetical, not as a practicality or reality, and to also say that basically, all of this was the work of God, and nobody could know for sure.

Despite Galileo's best efforts, a special interest group was going to get him no matter what he did (bolding mine):

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.
[...]
Galileo, too, became angry.  His noble goal of spreading scientific awareness to the public was being frustrated by a narrow-minded bureaucracy intent on preserving its own power.

Remind you of anyone?



Belief systems built as a house of cards fall like houses of cards. If one gets touched by anything stronger than a faint whisper, the house comes tumbling down.

Belief systems, note. Not religious belief systems. The systems themselves, irrespective of their subject matter. This applies to any belief or other system of thought that isn't really securely taught. Those who are well-schooled in their religion, science, cooking, whatever, can withstand a hell of a lot more than a faint whisper. My sister has her master's in theology, and she helped me write the entry on torture of heretics.

Too many people's faith is rather shallowly built. Challenge one aspect of their faith and suddenly OMG EVERYTHING IS WRONG! (Yes, and? The ever-popular Octet Rule is wrong 90 percent of the time and right 90 percent of the time. But its ground rule — full or empty orbital levels if at all possible — is true.)

But as stories adapt with time and facts (my penicillin story is incomplete, but I've left the dutiful reader more than enough help to get a more accurate picture), and what is faith if not another story?

You do not have to believe the Bible is an inerrant science book to arrive at a comforting, useful belief system. In fact, recognizing the limitations and purposes of the Bible is about the best way to arrive at the kind of faith that is based not on facts but on feeling. (Or so says the atheist.)

Take, for example, the Christmas story. The "facts" of that story are that Jesus was the guy's name, that he was born in December and that three kings later went to see him.

His name was Y'shua, which is Hebrew for Jesus. (Fascinating look there at the evolution of our letters.)

He wasn't born in December.

They weren't kings, and there probably weren't three of them.

(Yes, I am planning to write "Everything you know about Christmas is a lie" in December. How did you know?)

Anyway. Keep yourself interested in facts and you'll keep finding them. Keep yourself interested in the overall picture and you won't forever be looking for what isn't there. And keep yourself content to never know everything and your house of cards won't be predicated on a lie.

Originally posted to iampunha on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 06:54 AM PDT.

Poll

This best describes me or my position:

4%7 votes
8%13 votes
64%96 votes
16%24 votes
6%10 votes

| 150 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Think someone could get Bush to declare (5+ / 0-)

    pi equals three?  Or better yet, four.  Something with easy divisibleness.  

  •  In Jesus' name (7+ / 0-)

      First of all, there's no apostrophe -- apparently implying a schwa-sound.  Jesus' Aramaic name was Yêshû(, where the ( represents the sound of (ayin, a kind of throaty liquid sound.  Note the long and decidedly non-obscure e-vowel in the first syllable.  Yêshû( was an Aramaic adaptation or contraction of the Hebrew name Yəhôshu(, aka Joshua, meaning "Yhwh saves".

      In Greek, Yêshû( was transliterated Iêsous, because:

    *Greek had no consonantal y-sound, and substituted the closest sound it had, i;
    *Greek had no sh-sound, and substituted the closest sound, s;
    *Greek had a long u-sound, but spelled it ou;
    *To be inflected as a Greek masculine name, the ending -s had to be added to the nominative singular.

      In Latin, Iêsous became Jesus (pronounced yay-soose), because: * Latin did not usually start words with i followed by a vowel, and so converted the i back to a consonantal form j. * Latin regularly converted Greek ou into u.

      Through a series of sound changes taking place in Late Latin, Early French, and Middle and Modern English,

    *The J came to be pronounced the English way (i.e. dzh)
    *The e was raised to an i-sound (like the i in machine)
    *The first s was voiced to a z-sound
    *The u became a centralized vowel of obscure quality.

      Whoever wrote "Y'shua" has got the name confused with the related, but distinct, Hebrew word yəshû(âh meaning "saving" or "salvation".

  •  Thank you (2+ / 0-)

    I love your diaries. They deserve recognition.  Do you think quizzes would help make them more popular? :)

    Again, thank you for putting so much effort into filling in the gaps in my education. The last History Course I took was in 1965.

    We always need fresh air, fresh water and fresh ideas.

    by Parhelion14 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 07:30:11 AM PDT

  •  What has always blown my mind about (5+ / 0-)

    the Church's judgement of Galileo is that they didn't withdraw it until 1992.  

  •  When Bush cut funding to the levies... (2+ / 0-)

    ...before Katrina, I suppose it was because he knew the truth, and no science about global warming and hurricane predictions were going to get in his way.

    When Republicans claim global warming is all about politics, they are speaking for themselves.

    Their minds don't work like ours, I've come to believe.

  •  Iconoclast! Skeptic! Cynic! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Parhelion14

    Thanks for keeping it all real. You have made my day!!

    Get Skinny For Barack! Skip Lunch! DONATE NOW!

    by ezdidit on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:27:04 PM PDT

  •  Get your 'facts' straight (0+ / 0-)

    You might want to engage more closely with the text of the Bible and other source material rather than launching an atheist spray from a distance that is unlikely to hit any targets. If you are going to address common conceptions about the birth of Jesus by working from the text of the New Testament, you need first to evaluate your sources.

    •  Get your clues straight (4+ / 0-)

      You might want to engage more closely with humor if you want to understand that I am not here presenting myself as The Bible Scholar.

      Also, if you were specific about where I went wrong, you might get a more substantive answer.

      Also, if you have any specific complaints about my sources, you might want to include them.

      In conclusion, launching an "I'm mad that you attacked my religion!" spray works a lot better if the nozzle is on. As is, you're just dripping from whatever hole that may be.

      You might want to see a doctor about that.

      "Homeless veteran" should be an oxymoron.

      by iampunha on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:03:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Medieval Science and the Bible (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    penguins4peace

    Technically -- speaking as a history professor -- what got Galileo into trouble was not biblical fundamentalism on the part of the Catholic Church, but rather the rigid scholastic reliance on the theories of Ptolemy and Aristotle. In Galileo's day, there was no real division between philosophy, theology and science as we understand it today, so to say that the Church "opposed science" is anachronistic. What Galileo did -- brilliantly -- was to discover (or rather, reaffirm the insights of Copernicus) that 1. planetary motion and earthly gravity followed the same rules (they were believed to be separate "spheres", as it were) and 2. those rules, truths, really, could be expressed and predicted mathematically. One conclusion he drew from this, as well as his own astronomical observations, was that Copernicus had been right about heliocentrism. The Church taught that "reason" -- as exercised within the rules laid out by Aristotle and affirmed by Scripture -- was the basis of all human knowledge. When Galileo claimed to have "observed" new truths himself, and "proved" them using arithmetic calculations rather than the traditional appeals to Aristotelean reasoning, he essentially violated his oath as a university professor to teach and publish responsible "science" -- as then understood. An investigation was launched that eventually brought him before the Inquisition and resulted in his condemnation and forced recantation, though more on a legal technicality than the actual substance of the controversy.

    Ironically, had the medieval Church abandoned Aristotelianism, as it nearly did in the late 13th century, it might not have taken so long for a Galileo to come along and challenge conventional wisdom about the cosmos.  

  •  E pur si muove (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    penguins4peace, Parhelion14

    (which Galileo almost certainly never said)

    By the way, December is about as likely as any other time for Jesus' birth. The census story doesn't hold water, which means the author of Matthew made up the whole Bethlehem story, which means the 'shepherds guarding their flocks by night' is also made up, which means we have no basis whatsoever to assign any particular time of the year over any other to his birth. "December 25" is of course impossible, though, since his birthday should be according to the Hebrew lunar calendar.

    Feed the babies who don't have enough to eat / Shoe the children with no shoes on their feet / House the people living in the street / Oh, there's a solution

    by dconrad on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:43:52 AM PDT

  •  There is no Jesus. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Parhelion14

    I really enjoyed your post.

    But you need to take one final, bold step, and recognize that we have no reason to believe Jesus existed at all.

    The only evidence for Jesus is the Bible, which you already recognize is full of myth - from Adam and Eve, to the ark, to the parting of the red sea. But the evidence against his existence is overwhelming. And his complete absence from any other records of the time, especially given his supposed prominence, is quite compelling.  

    I beg you, if you are going to write "Everything you know about Christmas is a lie" - do some research into the existence of Jesus. And recognize that when it comes to Jesus, it's all make believe. Like Zeus. Like the flying spaghetti monster. Like Santa.

    It will be difficult, but only when you take this final step, will you be earn the right to poke fun at those who cling to beliefs and dogma regardless of the facts in front of them.

    Good luck, and keep writing!
    :)

    •  As an atheist, I have to fault your reasoning. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      penguins4peace, Parhelion14

      You say that the only evidence for the existence of Jesus is the Bible, which is unreliabe due to the existence of many myths in the Old Testament.

      To buttress your point, you would really need to cite to myths that are contained in the contemporaneous writings which are found in the New Testament and the apochrypha.

      Your argument is that sometime about 50-80 years after his supposed death, a bunch of people simultaneously created a fictional character and nobody pointed out in any now-existant record, "Hey, it's just a story.  Kind of like Harry Potter."

      Your argument is as flawed as the guy who once argued with me that archeologists are finding more and more evidence for some of the historical accounts contained in the Old Testament, therefore there is evidence that the Bible is true and exact, down to its last jot and tittle, to use a phrase from above.

      Si se fucking puede! - Melody Townsel

      by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:46:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Two things I'll point out right now, (0+ / 0-)

      amid noting that I have no plans to discuss the fact or fiction of the man's existence, is this:

      "And his complete absence from any other records of the time, especially given his supposed prominence, is quite compelling."

      1. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.
      1. His supposed prominence is highlighted by his followers. Of COURSE they make him out to be huge. Those for whom he was not a revolutionary figure presumably did not see him in the same way.

      I do not think there is evidence enough for me to say that Jesus lived or did not live. And I frankly have no interest in arguing the point. I don't bloody care. What I do care about are the myriad "facts" that have no place being taught to anyone as anything resembling a fact, such as the utter rot (and relatively recent) that The 12 Days of Christmas is some surrepticious attempt to maintain religious teachings amid persecution.

      "Homeless veteran" should be an oxymoron.

      by iampunha on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:58:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible (2+ / 0-)

    Get it.  It's great fun!  Without (OK, mostly without) commenting on matters of faith or belief, Asimov provides historical, linguistic, archaeological and ethnological context, going verse by verse.

    He did the same thing for the bard in "Isaac Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare".

    Wine for the nomination. (done!) Champagne for the election. 25 year old Glenmorangie watered with lobbyists' tears for the inauguration. - Magorn

    by On Puget Sound on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:44:55 AM PDT

  •  I once stumbled across (0+ / 0-)

    Bible-based "scientists" who can prove geocentrism, and diaried it here.

    Si se fucking puede! - Melody Townsel

    by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:09:53 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site