bellarmino e galileo

. Image courtesy of Wellcome Library, London. And what standard of “proof” are you applying? (John 12:32 & St. John Chrysostom). Brodrick’s earlier Life and work of Robert Francis Bellarmine (London, 1928) is quite defective in its treatment of the Galileo case. ( Log Out /  During the George Floyd protests, he tweeted out research (from a Black scholar) showing that non-violent protests increase the Democratic vote while violent protests suppress it. The Church did not kill scientists for doing science. Facebook. That’s not how [at least some] historians who have looked at it think. I blamed the victim precisely where he was in error, just as I blame the tribunal for making the dumb judgment. He held that the entire universe revolved around the sun in circular (not elliptical) orbits, and that tides were caused by the rotation of the earth. Punishing people for being wrong—or worse, for being only partially wrong—is exactly the kind of anti-scientific attitude that is being criticized. He submitted at once, had a forty-five minute audience with the pope who assured him of his continued admiration and support. The miracle could not be seen as disproving a theory about those laws. His monumental work was the first attempt to systematize the controversies of the time, and made an powerful impression throughout Europe. That both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. ? ( Log Out /  Bellarmine had always shown great interest in the Galileo’s discoveries and frequently corresponded in friendship with him. My goal is to present lesser-known facts that the secularists usually don’t provide. Or the promise and peril of hydroxychloroquine. 2. You’re missing the point: which was that he understood the tentative nature of scientific theories better than Galileo did.

Like Bellarmine, they agreed that the phenomena were in the sky but denied that they proved Galileo’s contentions. [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]. This renowned and distinguished Jesuit theologian, writer and cardinal was brought up at the newly-founded Jesuit college and entered the Society of Jesus.

Image courtesy of Creative Commons, We are faced with Washington Post headlines that refer to “problematic books” and disturbing images of book-burning at the Portland protests. It is a curious and paradoxical circumstance . From Bari Weiss’ dramatic resignation from The New York Times in July to recent banter on Twitter about “wokeism,” the accusations of stifling orthodoxy have flowed toward certain kinds progressives, who have chilled and even censored free and open debate of complex topics in the name of a faith whose god is wokeness. Change ). This, it is clear, they never did. This use of quasi-religious language has been noted in quarters critical of “wokeism” — a lamentable term that nonetheless expresses how much it looks and acts like a religion in the middle of an awakening. St. Robert Bellarmine was to Pius V what Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was to Pope John Paul II: in charge of the Holy Office and chief theologian. So you can cite one or two Catholics against my opinion; I cite Jewish philosophers of science Popper and Kuhn against yours. Bellarmine actually had the superior understanding of the nature of a scientific hypothesis, . This is both false and ahistorical; Bellarmine nowhere evinces anything close to scientific reasoning as a basis for any of his actions in the affair.

So you lump folks into “good” and “bad” Catholics, according to how they come down on the Galileo issue. This position justly accommodated both sides of the Galilean controversy. But a host of topics central to today’s public discourse are also deeply informed by science, and those of us with religious commitments, traditional and otherwise, should avoid ideological fundamentalism, engaging instead as Cardinal Bellarmine did with Galileo. Nevertheless, it is the most accurate biography of Bellarmine, and it is substantiated by a rich array of primary sources. This means an anti-fundamentalist willingness to engage in fact-respecting, rational discourse and to change one’s mind when science gives us data we didn’t have before. This mini-debate took place in the combox for my post, Galileo: The Myths and the Facts. So now you can say that it would have been different if he were younger. You goal seems to be to follow every line of thought that makes Bellarmine an anti-scientific idiot in, states: “Cardinal Bellarmine was willing to countenance scientific truth if it could be proven or demonstrated . He did not mention any prohibition against teaching the Copernican theory as an hypothesis.

The terms in which heliocentrism was originally condemned were indeed “irreversible” and were treated as such until it became clear that geocentrism was completely untenable; at which point rather than admitting error, the church simply retconned the basis for the original judgement. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of Galileo’s chief interlocutors during the 17-year controversy, was more than open to the science but cautioned against changing the Church’s teaching … Woke fundamentalists could learn from Cardinal Bellarmine’s approach. How any of that is to be regarded as “whitewashing,” however, is a mystery to me. It wasn’t my argument about Bellarmine, but rather, noted Jewish philosopher and historian of science, Thomas Kuhn’s. Karl Popper was mentioned unfavorably in your citation. Kuhn nowhere in the cited text says or even implies that Bellarmine is a better scientist that Galileo in any respect. Accordingly, St. Robert Bellarmine, who was directly involved in the controversy, made it clear that heliocentrism was not irreversibly condemned, and also that a not-yet proven theory was not an unassailable fact.

I’m not saying otherwise. Later, holding the chair of Controversies at the Roman College, Bellarmine’s powerful lectures grew into the work OF CONTROVERSIES which won him great renown. Also, send me the Catholic Newsletter and special offers. Bruno was executed in 1600 not as a “scientific martyr,” but as a rank heretic, according to Catholic teaching (he was an odd sort of pantheist). That was my point about Bellarmine, and Kuhn supported it, while acknowledging that there were also anti-scientific fools and idiots in the Church.
I cited Kuhn because he agreed with me on that score: Bellarmine understood scientific method better than Galileo did. But Bellarmine didn’t show any such willingness; to the contrary, he fully concurred with the 1616 decision of Paul V to suppress heliocentrism as being contrary to Scripture, thus staking the reputation of the church on the issue. Those inconvenient facts are deliberately omitted in grade school and high school scientific education, or if not so, everyone is so ignorant about them they don’t even know enough to suppress the embarrassing information. He was a geocentrist: not yet convinced of heliocentrism, but so were many at the time, including the great scientist Tycho Brahe, who had just recently died.

(Note that the antecedent of “more rationally” in the passage quoted is not Galileo himself, but rather those who either refused to look through the telescope or who claimed that the phenomena observed were caused by the telescope rather than being real.).

Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. I haven’t claimed that Bellarmine was a perfect specimen of scientific virtue, in every way. All rights reserved. From his post as Rector of the Roman College he was called in 1597 by Pope Clement VIII to be his personal theologian as well as Examiner of Bishops and Consulter of the Holy Office.

I’m simply taking into consideration all the relevant facts of the matter, as I learn of them.

Bellarmine and Galileo In 07 Observation on 2014/10/11 at 12:00 AM St. Robert Bellarmine was to Pius V what Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was to Pope John Paul II: in charge of the Holy Office …
Yes; at that point he thought Scripture was against it, but acknowledged a scenario whereby science might make it necessary to re-think that particular interpretation. philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, in his book, The Copernican Revolution (New York: Random House / Vintage Books, 1957, p. 226), after commenting on some folks who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, wrote: Most of Galileo’s opponents behaved more rationally.

Cap Simeri Crichi, Gaiaofficial Instagram, Santa Caterina Valfurva - Mappa, Pizza Acciughe E Olive, Hotel Rinelli, Margherita Di Savoia Recensioni, Pizzeria Aperta A Pranzo, Pantelleria Cosa Vedere, Anno 2020, Immagini Nonni Divertenti, Andrea Maggi Insegnante, Ovidio, Metamorfosi Pdf, Martino Nomix, Santo 25 Ottobre, Maruska Significato, Bull Episodi, Sindaco Di Fiesole, Cartoline Di Buon Onomastico Anna, Sintomo In Latino, Udienza Collegiale Significato, Erica Accento, Chicago Mcdonald's Menu, Il Fiume Di Orenburg, Piazza San Pietro Oggi, Il Commissario Montalbano Piratestreaming, Il Giovano Montalbano Ieri Sera, The The See Without Being Seen 2020, Camilleri Ultimo Libro Montalbano 2019, Lilli E Il Vagabondo'' In Inglese, Reddito Di Cittadinanza Per Chi Lavora All'estero, San Policarpo, Elettra Nome Diffusione, Bonus 600 Euro Non Arrivato, Significato Del Nome Alessandra, Cosa Si Celebra Il 4 Agosto, Sabato Sera Canzone Anni 60, Pizza Baby Grammi, Numero Inps Roma, Come Rivedere Un Programma Rai, Santo San Manuel,