Well, that's not really how it happened. Don't forget that Galileo spilled a lot of ink in order to deliberately mock and humiliate the Holy Father at the time. His trial and sentence were not so much about his science than about his lousy attitude toward legitimate authority. There were other scientists who adhered to the Copernican perspective (Copernicus himself is a Roman Catholic priest) without so much trouble.

> His trial and sentence were not so much about his science than about his lousy attitude toward legitimate authority

References?

The charge of heresy is for heretic views, such as the Copernican heliocentric model in his case. It threatens to upend the authority of the Church; if the Church can be wrong about the nature of the universe then surely they can be wrong about other matters as well. His Dialogues remain banned by the Church till 1835, ~200 years later. To say that Galileo was convicted of heresy for "bad behaviour" is simply disingenuous.

The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements as well as valid scientific criticisms of his work.

Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made: offering a sufficient condition for an occurrence does not prove that this condition caused the event. Him being tried and convicted of heresy doesn’t mean that his trial wasn’t politically motivated. Despots make up charges for political enemies constantly throughout history and heresy was an obvious choice

The Pope had been a fan and political ally of his within the church even before his ascension, and Galileo didn’t just disregard his request for a discussion of geocentric theory but did so in a way that specifically called him an idiot and undermined his authority. The Pope, who was essentially the ruler of central Italy, couldn’t let that public ridicule slide whether or not Galileo intended it (historians think the slights were unintentional). This led to his second trial for heresy for which he was convicted.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

> The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements

I am not denying that there were political factors in play. I am saying that the main factor in play was his dissent against the Church.

> valid scientific criticisms of his work. Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made

There is a distinction between 'evidence that refutes the geocentric model' and 'evidence that supports the Copernican heliocentric model'.

While the technology available did not allow him conclusively proof the Copernican heliocentric model (there were also issues with the model), the evidence he had strongly refuted the central thesis of the geocentric model - that Earth is the center of the universe and everything in the sky resolves around Earth. That lead him to advocate for the Copernican heliocentric model, inference to the best explanation.

Galileo observed that Venus had phases despite remaining near the Sun in Earth's sky, which proves that Venus revolves the Sun, not the Earth, hence refutes the geocentric model. His discovery of the moons revolving Jupiter further refutes the geocentric model, that not everything in the sky revolves around Earth. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Copernican_sy...

And pro-heliocentrism books remained in the Church's Index of banned books until 1758.[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum#Ch...

That’s the one example anyone ever uses and it’s way oversimplified. It’s also something that occurred 400 years ago, conducted by a church that doesn’t exist anymore (the catholics have changed a lot in 400 years and the Inquisition has been dead a long time).

The argument in the OP isn’t that religion hasn’t opposed or suppressed science. It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science. While some may wield religion to whatever ends suits them, the religion itself was merely the tool of the day. We see evidence of that throughout history, to oppose science or anything else.

What lies in the heart of the Galileo's Copernican Heliocentrism argument is the Church is and can be wrong, thus challenging the authority of the Church.

It is often used as an example because it is the prime example of the beginning of The Enlightenment, also known as The Age of Reason, the triumph of reason and evidence over dogma, which gave rise to modernity.

> It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science.

Take the creation narrative in Genesis: the world was created ~10,000 years ago in 6 (or 7, depending on how you count it) days. Is that narrative in fundamental conflict with modern science? Can both the genesis creation narrative and the theory of evolution be right? What and who decides which is correct? Should reason and evidence guide our beliefs or ancient texts proclaimed to be sacred?

Depends on the dogma. For some christian sects the old testament is genuinely a fable. It isn’t necessarily the religion, or spirituality more generally, that is opposed to science or rationality, but the dogma and way the spirituality/religion is taught/practiced.

That’s what they taught us in Catholic school as a kid. The Old Testament was a combination of parables and oral history before eventually being recorded. Moreover, we were taught that part of the significance of the Crucifixion was that it was to establish a new pact between humans and God, hence Jesus doing away with the old rules and commandments and Jesus commanding that the faith be spread beyond ethnic Jews.

Yup. I’m not catholic anymore but it’s what I was taught too.

That's very sad, but not so surprising, that Catholic schools would teach things that the Catholic Church has never taught. That's usually one more brick in the wall for kids who leave the faith, because their illusions are shattered by teachers and clergy who don't really believe in Church doctrines, and couldn't be bothered to pass down the Truth to children who are eager to know it.

What are you going on about? That’s all nonsense.

>It is often used as an example because it is the prime example of the beginning of The Enlightenment, also known as The Age of Reason, the triumph of reason and evidence over dogma, which gave rise to modernity.

But is this reality or just a nice narrative people like to bring up as a "all experts are wrong" dog whistle?

The Galileo thing was about politics, not religion. The pope (who was a good friend of his) gave him permission to write and publish the book, and then Galileo used an exact quote from that friend as a line from a character called "Simplicio" and it turns out spitting in your friend's face when the rest of the elites already hate you is a great way to be censured in a time before "knowledge is power".

It also wasn't scientific.

The Vatican also had real power back then, not just soft power as the head of a religion. They controlled a decent chunk of Italy outright. Galileo was also around during the Counter-Reformation when the Church dealing with the political ramifications of the rise of Protestantism, and saw his reinterpretation of the Bible as fire power for the Protestants.

Moreover, there were valid epistemological criticisms of Galileo’s theory. The scientific method and accepted standards of proof were being developed. This work was also pre-Newton, this physical laws themselves were still not well-understood. Many of his critics were skeptical because, while heliocentric theory simplified the math, Galileo hadn’t disproved geocentricism — he gave a sufficient condition for his data not a necessary one. Thus, they complained he was making claims beyond the scope of his scientific work.

> he gave a sufficient condition for his data not a necessary one. Thus, they complained he was making claims beyond the scope of his scientific work.

That is incorrect. Galileo observed that Venus had phases despite remaining near the Sun as observed from Earth, which proves that Venus revolves the Sun, not the Earth, hence refutes the geocentric model. His discovery of the moons revolving Jupiter further refutes the geocentric model, that not everything in the sky revolves around Earth.

> But is this reality or just a nice narrative people like to bring up as a "all experts are wrong" dog whistle?

How is that even remotely related to "all experts are wrong"?

> The Galileo thing was about politics, not religion.

As I said in another comment, the Copernican heliocentric model is at odds with the Church's geocentric doctrine and the Scriptures, hence challenging the Church's and the religion's credibility and authority. To claim that the Galileo affair is simply a "personal feud" is wholly disingenuous.

> It also wasn't scientific.

Galileo used the empirical data (observation of the planets) he obtained through his telescope to test and justify the Copernican heliocentrism model - it is the definition of science.