Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon

[iceaura]

Yes, all those silly theists, like Aryabhatta in the golden Gupta Age, Copernicus and Galileo. What were they thinking?

Galileo and Copernicus were theists ?

Maybe. You have to recall the penalty for public atheism, though, at the time. Let's just say they weren't exactly famous for piety, and leave it at that.

I suppose you can make a case that the originals, at least the originals who wrote it down, - Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, and the boys - were theists too, in the relaxed sense, although it wasn't a God Abraham would have recognized, or the Pope who condemned their bizarre speculations in Galileo's time.

What we do know is how the reigning and undoubted and formal theists of the times reacted - Anaxagoras fled his home town a step ahead of the priesthood, Galileo went down on his knees and denied the Copernican blasphemy under oath.

What was Galileo thinking ? Hard to say. Probably not appreciating the expansion of the human imagination bestowed by the theistic beliefs of his Inquisitors, though.

 

[S.A.M.]

More myths of atheism, no doubt.

http://www.ips-planetarium.org/planetarian/articles/mythofgalileo.html

 

[iceaura]

More myths of atheism, no doubt.

http://www.ips-planetarium.org/plane...ofgalileo.html

You should always read your links.

Eventually, when Galileo embraced Copernicism, they were able to enmesh the clerics in their battle.

If you had, you would have noticed that in the opinion of its author Galileo embodied the classic asshole atheist scorned by such as yourself - cocksure, egotistical, etc.

The opposition of the theistic authorities to Copernican theory is no myth.

 

[S.A.M.]

You should always read your links.

If you had, you would have noticed that in the opinion of its author Galileo embodied the classic asshole atheist scorned by such as yourself - cocksure, egotistical, etc.

The opposition of the theistic authorities to Copernican theory is no myth.

The arguments they presented were all scientifically sound. Galileo was talking utter gibberish.

I read the whole article.

And no, he was not an atheist, but a self declared devout Christian.

Galileo saw both the truths of Scriptures and the truths of nature as having been derived from the same source: God; therefore, one could not contradict the other. “Holy Scripture and nature, are both emanations from the divine word: the former dictated by the Holy Spirit, the latter the observant executrix of God’s commands.” Thus, “…no truth discovered in Nature could contradict the deep truth of the Holy Writ.” [viii] Furthermore, Galileo held that the primary aim of Scriptures was not to reveal scientific truths but “…to worship God and save souls.[i

The proper understanding of Scriptures required proper illumination from God, thus Galileo turned to God in prayer for the ability to understand the spiritual truths of the Bible. “I trust the infinite goodness of God may direct toward the purity of my mind a small amount of His grace that I may understand the meaning of His words.”[x]

The human mind was according to Galileo one the greatest of God’s achievements. “ When I consider what marvellous things men have understood, what he has inquired into and contrived, I know only too clearly that the human mind is a work of God, and one of the most excellent.” Yet the potential of the human mind “. . . is separated from the Divine knowledge by an infinite interval.” [xi]

http://michaelcaputo.tripod.com/galileoandgod/index.htm

And in case you don't trust a theistic source [such liars they be]:

Galileo remained a devout Catholic until his death, but he never married the mother of his three children.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/20-things-you-didn2019t-know-about-galileo

btw, I'm surprised that you haven't heard about the myth before. The Church supported Kepler after all.

 

[iceaura]

The arguments they presented were all scientifically sound. Galileo was talking utter gibberish.

Not about the Copernican Theory. Their arguments were not sound, and his were correct, on that subject.

And that was the blasphemy.

And no, he was not an atheist, but a self declared devout Christian.

Self-declaration from that time is worthless as evidence of private belief.

He may have been, despite his writings and behaviors, a devout Christian. It's just not the way to bet. He wasn't a devout kind of guy.

btw, I'm surprised that you haven't heard about the myth before.

I have heard many versions of the myth, and the debunking of the debunkings, and so forth. Most interestingly, Galileo's original writings documenting his observations of Venus were part of Edward Tufte's traveling Chatauqua - he passed around the book, with the original drawings. If you're around the East Coast, check it out sometime.

btw: the original point was not whether Galileo was atheist, but what the reaction of theists was, and has been, to this kind of discovery of the imagination. The tangent is interesting, but - - -

 

[S.A.M.]

He became a monk in exile, a defrocked priest.

 

[iceaura]

He became a monk in exile, a defrocked priest.

Good for him. He never was a frocked priest, so that was quite the accomplishment.

It wasn't exile, btw. It was house arrest - one alternative was to torture him to death. But, as you say, he successfully claimed devout Christian theism and deep faith in the Catholic God.

btw: In an anonymous survey by a lapsed Catholic priest I ran across once, about 4% of the priests in the Catholic Church are atheists.

I have never run across a similar survey of Muslim clerics. I would imagine the percentage is lower - but not 0, eh?

 

[S.A.M.]

Good for him. He never was a frocked priest, so that was quite the accomplishment.

It wasn't exile, btw. It was house arrest - one alternative was to torture him to death. But, as you say, he successfully claimed devout Christian theism and deep faith in the Catholic God.

btw: In an anonymous survey by a lapsed Catholic priest I ran across once, about 4% of the priests in the Catholic Church are atheists.

I have never run across a similar survey of Muslim clerics. I would imagine the percentage is lower - but not 0, eh?

No he did not. He recanted his theories based on lack of evidence. Scientists like Tycho Brache, who opposed Galileo, had no problem conducting research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe

And after insulting the Pope in public as a simpleton, not to mention plagiarising and fighting with all major scientists its hardly surprising that no one wanted him around.

 

[iceaura]

No he did not. He recanted his theories based on lack of evidence.

Oh get a grip: They weren't his theories, SAM. They were Copernicus's Theories. The blasphemy was Copernican, not Galilean.

His theories about tides and so forth were wrong. But that wasn't the blasphemy that got the clerics involved.

And you can't recant observations, which were Galileo's contribution. Lots of evidence, there. His telescope stuff pretty much nailed the coffin lid on Ptolemy's Theory.

Meanwhile, he did in fact affirm his belief in God and his affirmation of God's truth as revealed in official Church doctrine and yadda yadda yadda - under oath, under threat, with his life on the line. That is not a myth.

Tycho Brahe got to keep on working because he did not support Copernican Theory. Tycho's explanation of the evidence compiled by Galileo was BS. Galileo's was better.

Now, about the point: IIRC we were talking about how theists react to new ideas that contradict their former worldview, and require imagination to comprehend. The example here, of the reaction of some theists to Copernican astronomy, was jsut one illustration.

And after insulting the Pope in public as a simpleton, not to mention plagiarising and fighting with all major scientists its hardly surprising that no one wanted him around.

And he refused to marry the mother of his children, no respect for community values, and so forth. The type specimen of the asshole atheist, he would be, if he were atheist - am I right ?

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh get a grip: They weren't his theories, SAM. They were Copernicus's Theories. The blasphemy was Copernican, not Galilean.

His theories about tides and so forth were wrong. But that wasn't the blasphemy that got the clerics involved.

And you can't recant observations, which were Galileo's contribution. Lots of evidence, there. His telescope stuff pretty much nailed the coffin lid on Ptolemy's Theory.

Meanwhile, he did in fact affirm his belief in God and his affirmation of God's truth as revealed in official Church doctrine and yadda yadda yadda - under oath, under threat, with his life on the line. That is not a myth.

Tycho Brahe got to keep on working because he did not support Copernican Theory. Tycho's explanation of the evidence compiled by Galileo was BS. Galileo's was better.

Now, about the point: IIRC we were talking about how theists react to new ideas that contradict their former worldview, and require imagination to comprehend. The example here, of the reaction of some theists to Copernican astronomy, was jsut one illustration.

You did not read the whole article, did you? The scientists booted him before the clergy did.

Besides, all of them were theists, self declared, with no intimation of any atheism.

 

[iceaura]

You did not read the whole article, did you? The scientists booted him before the clergy did.

So? Most of those scientists - like Brahe - were theists. All of them were wrong, if they rejected Copernican Theory and Galileo's evidence supporting it. If even scientific training does not protect people from the influence of theism on solid evaluation of new ideas, so much the worse.

Besides, all of them were theists, self declared, with no intimation of any atheism.

And the fact that if they hadn't been, they would have been professionally destroyed and quite possibly tortured to death in public is not a factor in your estimations ?

I'm going to repeat this little stat, and try again to find the damn survey - it's old now: Somewhere in the neighborhood of 4% of Catholic priests are atheist.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 4% of Catholic priests are atheist.

What effect does this have on anything?

 

[Zephyr]

iceaura:

I read the Bible some time back, but are there versions where Jesus is happily tripping to the crucifix, exalted at saving the world?

You could write one, but it seems slightly unrealistic to me. No matter how much one might want to sacrifice oneself for the rest of the world, it would be difficult to ignore the pain of Crucifixion.

Maybe it would work if you updated the setting and had him killed by electric chair.

 

[(Q)]

Wonderful post, Arsalan.

Marvelous post Arsalan.

:bugeye:

Now try re-reading it through the eyes of an adult.

 

[Michael]

believing something and believing something is possible are two different things.

For example, you may never believe in Xenu, yet, Xenu may, in reality, exist. You could say, I do not believe in Xenu, but yes, I believe that Xenu's existence is a possibility.

That was the point of the cavepeople analogy

 

[DiamondHearts]

:bugeye:

Now try re-reading it through the eyes of an adult.

I take it that by adult, you mean athiest right.

 

[S.A.M.]

So? Most of those scientists - like Brahe - were theists. All of them were wrong, if they rejected Copernican Theory and Galileo's evidence supporting it. If even scientific training does not protect people from the influence of theism on solid evaluation of new ideas, so much the worse.

And the fact that if they hadn't been, they would have been professionally destroyed and quite possibly tortured to death in public is not a factor in your estimations ?

I'm going to repeat this little stat, and try again to find the damn survey - it's old now: Somewhere in the neighborhood of 4% of Catholic priests are atheist.

Copernicus was a theist too.

My goal is to find the truth in God's majestic creation. ~ Nicolaus Copernicus

Besides, all the points on which Galileo was dunned was bad science or lack of evidence. It would be equally true today of any theory that did not have sufficient evidence to back it up. You could not publish articles as if it were undisputed fact. Did you read that link yet?
http://www.ips-planetarium.org/planetarian/articles/mythofgalileo.html

:bugeye:

Now try re-reading it through the eyes of an adult.

Sure, see any here?

believing something and believing something is possible are two different things.

For example, you may never believe in Xenu, yet, Xenu may, in reality, exist. You could say, I do not believe in Xenu, but yes, I believe that Xenu's existence is a possibility.

That was the point of the cavepeople analogy

That makes absolutely NO sense.

If you believe something, do you believe it is impossible?
If you believe something is possible, do you not believe it? GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

 

[S.A.M.]

You could write one, but it seems slightly unrealistic to me. No matter how much one might want to sacrifice oneself for the rest of the world, it would be difficult to ignore the pain of Crucifixion.

Maybe it would work if you updated the setting and had him killed by electric chair.

I've seen people whipping themselves in frenzy for Ashura. Inspite of it being forbidden by the imams.

Do any of them look like they are weeping?

Where did the concept of self sacrifice by Jesus first come from?

 

[iceaura]

Copernicus was a theist too.

My goal is to find the truth in God's majestic creation. ~ Nicolaus Copernicus

In the first place, it is past time to return to the issue: the reactions of theists to presentations of inconvenient theories and awkward works of imagination.

In the second, you must recognize that absolutely no self-identifications of theistic devotion or belief are evidence of genuine private belief, in a society in which even the appearance of public denial of such belief would be a professional disaster and a capital crime.

Besides, all the points on which Galileo was dunned was bad science or lack of evidence.

Bullshit. And no empty repetition of that assertion in some link adds the slightest validity to it.

Galileo was threatened with severe punishments, and his sentence of lifelong house arrest was a mild one obtained only by signed confession of error in belief and reaffirmation of faith. That is not what happens to people judged to have made poor scientific arguments and presented inadequate evidence for physical theories.

 

[S.A.M.]

In the first place, it is past time to return to the issue: the reactions of theists to presentations of inconvenient theories and awkward works of imagination.

In the second, you must recognize that absolutely no self-identifications of theistic devotion or belief are evidence of genuine private belief, in a society in which even the appearance of public denial of such belief would be a professional disaster and a capital crime.

In that case, by your second argument, your first one is redundant. We cannot claim anyone is a theist any more than we can claim they are atheists.

Bullshit. And no empty repetition of that assertion in some link adds the slightest validity to it.

Galileo was threatened with severe punishments, and his sentence of lifelong house arrest was a mild one obtained only by signed confession of error in belief and reaffirmation of faith. That is not what happens to people judged to have made poor scientific arguments and presented inadequate evidence for physical theories.

Thats your fantasy, a man who "dares" to call the Pope a simple minded idiot in public would hardly care about public opinion.