Re:Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious
by neaden on Thursday October 06, 2016 @12:05PM
(#12653583)
It amazes me that a literal wizard is held up as a martyr for science these days.
Re:Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious
by ConceptJunkie on Thursday October 06, 2016 @01:11PM
(#12654125)
It's amazing how the narrative is distorted to push an agenda, isn't it?
Re:Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious
by ltbarcly3 on Thursday October 06, 2016 @01:43PM
(#12654439)
Well, it sounds like he was burned alive for some fairly mundane opinions that were not tolerated by the religious authorities who had at that time the power to murder anyone who disagreed with them.
Re:Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious
by hprotagonist on Thursday October 06, 2016 @03:33PM
(#12655370)
or, in a word, politics.
this being a time in which the vatican had the single largest mercenary force in europe, and all. The church wasn't just "the religious authorities". The vatican had been the most stable de-facto state for much of Europe for something close to a millienia at that point.
> In the spring of 1599, the trial was begun before a commission of the Roman Inquisition, and, after the accused had been granted several terms of respite in which to retract his errors, he was finally condemned (January, 1600), handed over to the secular power (8 February), and burned at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome (17 February). Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.
He also has the interesting distinction of being excommunicated by three major denominations (the church of rome, the lutherans, the reform church, and elizabeth/CofE didn't like him much either) which is possibly a unique distinction for his time.
tl;dr: bruno had a seriously abrasive personality, heterodox and incoherent theological views, and the result wasn't pretty. His science, such as it was, had little to nothing to do with it.
[0]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03016a.htm