YESSS!!! This is one of THE BIGGEST anti Catholic lies floating around. I remember in my astronomy class my last semester of college, our professor corrected it & explained and I was SHOOK. The false narrative is taught in U.S. public school soooo cringy!!
LizziesAnswers I'm surprised your prof corrected it, but I went to a secular university. I found out the facts from a BBC doc. The false narrative is still being presented in the primary grades. I've subbed for science teachers who leave an old ABC After School Special video that makes Galileo come across as a mild mannered innocent, while the men of the Church come across as power hungry zealots. Then there's the old NASA site for school children, Star Child. In a previous version of the site, the biographies for all the astronomers who lived around the time of Galileo included a cut and paste line: "In those days the Catholic Church was very powerful." Sometimes it was laughable how awkward the line was placed at inappropriate or irrelevant parts of the bios, but it was offensive to Catholics, and I protested. The current version of Star Child doesn't include the cut and paste line in the bio for Tycho Brahe any more, but I haven't checked the rest. There's a companion teacher site for Star Child that still emphasizes falsehoods such as, "Because the Church taught that the Earth was central, Copernicus's theory was regarded as heresy." (teacherlink.ed.usu.edu).
Ah, you like Brian too? I had a few quibbles on Brian's video, but except for a word or two referring back to first half, I totally support second half: assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2020/02/with-brian-holdsworth-on-galileo-affair.html
Just last semester my general biology professor brought up the Galileo incident as an example of some people being so stubborn as to not change their minds in the face of overwhelming evidence (he was talking about logistic curves and whether the upper asymptote is sharp or smooth). I got to talk to him about the nuances of the Galileo incident after class for a couple days, he did some research into it, and came back to me basically converted, and yet concerned as to why the history wasn’t very clear.
@@killianmiller6107 Well, tell him to reformulate that is why the historiography isn't very clear. A fairly good hunch is, the Galileo "legend" (legends don't need to be untrue, but you know which one I mean, and this one is), has been pushed by enemies of the Church, starting with Freemasons and before them English Protestants for a few centuries. Generations of schoolboys have been exposed to it and often to little or no alternative versions. That's part of the "perks" with compulsory school to the people type I mentioned.
Furthermore, Galileo was not the first person of his day to propose Heliocentrism, that was Copernicus, a Polish priest (or canon, I've read both), and he had no problems with the Church because he frankly admitted that it was not proven, but simply made the model of orbital mechanics simpler, though not much more accurate (he posited circular rather than elliptical orbits). He was so highly thought of that he was asked by Pope Gregory to help reform the calendar to the present "Gregorian" calendar with the improved leap year rule. On Galileo, I recommend the wonderful book "Galileo's Daughter" by Dava Sobel who talks about Galileo and his daughter, a nun who cared for him toward the end of his life.
@@sjsupa _Copernicus did not want to publish his ideas because he was afraid of the Church's reaction, but because, as a perfectionist, he never thought it ready to be published._
Great job on this video! While researching the history of Alchemy, I came across an article on Galileo that totally changed my perspective of the Catholic Church with the understanding that in that time period, there was no separation of Church and State. With this new understanding, I started researching more about the true history of many scientist of the time period and realized how much the Catholic Church embraces science, etc.... Now I am joining RCIA to convert to Catholicism 🤷🏻♀️
@A waterfall Henry VIII didn't actually intend to leave catholicism and died believing he was catholic despite having set himself up as the head of the local national church within the catholic church. This was a disagreement in ecclesiology with Rome rather than an intentional sundering. The departure from professing catholicism started with Edward and the Edwardian reforms of the anglican church.
@@syedhasanahmed3514 The facts suggest otherwise. Henry VIII was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for divorcing Catherine of Aragon (lack of a male heir) and having multiple extramarital affairs (at least 6). He executed opponents (St. Thomas More, clergy, and hundreds of protesters) and established the Church of England--with himself conveniently as head--to nullify his marriage to Catherine and to legitimize 5 more "marriages" (the six: divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived). Henry VIII appointed Thomas Cromwell, an extremely vicious anti-Catholic, as Chief Minister. He approved of Cromwell's Dissolution of the Monasteries (and convents, churches/cathedrals, schools and hospitals) and destruction of shrines, which the king used to enrich himself and newly appointed cronies, and the Oath of Royal Supremacy, which marked opponents with treason and execution (esp. More and Fisher). Make no mistake, Henry VIII used the Protestant Revolution--Reformation is a misnomer--as a power grab opportunity and a chance to establish a monarch/state-run church, similar to what often happened on the continent. It's ironic that neither the English monarch nor the Church of England have much authority anymore in England. Henry used opponents to the Catholic Church for political expedience and appropriated convenient aspects of Catholic theology and sacraments for his now subservient Church of England. Worthwhile reading: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England, www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-dissolution-of-the-monasteries, www.newadvent.org/cathen/10455a.htm, and www.newadvent.org/cathen/05445a.htm.
@@michaelflores9220 The heliocentric theory has never been proven. The geocentric model has been proven time and time again. Galileo was wrong ....dead wrong. The Church was Right Genesis 1:1👍🏻
Also, Copernicus had also published an heliocentric theory of the universe, properly vetted and supported which was given the Imprimatur and he was able to publish it. He was definitely not excommunicated because his science was good . Most people also ignore the fact that Galileo admitted his error in his method and his way of taking revenge on his critics and was reconciled utterly with the Church prior to his death. He received Extreme Unction and died a devout Catholic.
Galileo was allowed to publish his work by the Church - provided he note that he hadn't proven any of his theories conclusively yet he continued to claim otherwise. His rudimentary heresy interogations led to nothing and the entire affair was seen as nothing but drama and theatrics
@Sunbro Nope! Scientific theories (and hypotheses) are either falsified or not falsified. A theory not being falsified is not the same as it has been proven to be true. Proving things is the realm of math and philosophy.
@Sunbro The heliocentric theory has never been proven. The geocentric model has been proven time and time again. Galileo was wrong ....dead wrong. Genesis 1:1👍🏻
@@michaelanderson4849 Galileo was a scientist, but the publication in question defended a geometric model. Even the best empirical observations couldn't support a theory that doesn't mathematically work, and the observations in question were not very useful anyway - either to him or to Kepler, Newton, etc. Although he made significant contributions to geometry and astronomy generally, his association with the Copernican revolution in particular is mostly cultural and historical, because he neither proved his math nor supported his physical theory. In this work, he did take a two-pronged approach, mathematical and empirical. The Church sanctioned his publication because his peers rejected both aspects of it. Most importantly, the physics didn't work. He actually could have proven that a Copernican model worked - with mathematical proofs. He didn't. He offered astronomical observations that were consistent with the existing epicyclical theory, so were inconsequential. And he offered vague arguments that were shown to be false within his lifetime. Such a paper, were it submitted today, would never make it past peer review. The Catholic scientific apparatus in that time worked a bit differently, but imprimatur functioned analogously and was ultimately the model for peer review. The modern architecture of scientific literature is based on that of late medieval scientific literature, but decentralized. In either system, Galileo's paper was horrible because its arguments were fallacious and based on empirically false premises (like tidal moment) and its math didn't work. It was Kepler who actually contributed proofs for a heliocentric model. He did it by positing elliptical orbits and he ended up being both physically and empirically correct in the broad sense, though it was not demonstrated with any significant cogency until Newton. It would have been very difficult for Galileo to empirically support heliocentrism, but he could have contributed an inductive connection between astronomical observations of the influence of celestial bodies on each other, using his skills as a physicist/engineer. Contrary to the story many people are told in high school physics classes, people understood principles of motion before Newton. Galileo himself understood inertia so well that he used it in his famous example illustrating one of his greatest contributions, the concept of Galilean transformation. And in fact, the word inertia is from Kepler, not Newton. Newton formulated the laws in their famous form, of course, but the basic force of the law of inertia was well understood by observation. There was a sequence of major discoveries throughout the life of the Church that led up to the demonstration of heliocentrism. Rodney Stark wrote about that sequence in his chapter on history of science in Bearing False Witness. So, by the time of Galileo it was possible for Galileo to discern universal gravitation and use it to make predictions of orbits that he had the astronomical technology to test. Everything he needed was at his disposal, but he was busy using it to investigate other ideas, particularly concerning tides and the structure of moons. It's actually amazing, considering his focus on tides and moons, that he didn't figure this stuff out first. All of this stuff _was_ ultimately connected, but by Isaac Newton, who knocked out universal gravitation, the tides, and heliocentric orbits all in one fell swoop. So Galileo easily could have made a strong case for a Copernican model. But instead he published unsubstantiated and false assertions in what amounted to a hit piece against the pope, whom he insulted through veiled jabs at a character he named Simplicius.
@@reclavea You can't be serious. You believe in epicycles then? Like I alluded to in my previous post, Newton proved a Keplerian model long ago. His predictions have been successfully tested countless times. The model works so well that it enables us to land spacecraft on other planets and moons, and to perform gravitational slingshots by sending rockets near where we predict a planet will be with extreme precision. If the model didn't work, none of this would be possible. It would be a hell of a coincidence for those calculations to somehow accidentally work in practice _every time_ despite being completely wrong. It's practically impossible. Gravitational slingshot maneuvers work precisely because the planets' orbits are known so precisely. If we were off by even a fraction of a degree, the whole mission would be forfeit. The craft would either crash into the planet or fly off into the void of space. Also, if the Ptolemaic model was correct, we would need to perform extremely complex calculations to account for epicycles for every space mission except those to the moon. The moon is the only "planet" whose empirically observed path across the sky doesn't require epicycles in the Ptolemaic model. Of course, the reason it doesn't require epicycles is because it's the only "planet" that does, in fact, orbit the Earth. If the geocentric model were true it would be an awfully strange coincidence for just one of the planets to not have any epicycle at all. And it would be an even stranger coincidence for nearly all our space missions to succeed despite calculating based on ordinary elliptical orbits around the sun instead of based on epicyclical, circular orbits around the Earth.
From the Inquisition to the Salmen Witch Trials, Galileo and the Crusades, I'm learning throughout history that Catholics tend to be on the right side of things, but don't get realized for it until later down the line in history. I can't wait to finish RCIA and become Catholic.
My sister received her PhD in Religious Studies. She had to go to primary sources and study valid historical documents about Galileo. Don’t even broach the subject of this man with her ( and I have noted other scholars who have studied his life in depth who agree with her ) Apparently, he was not the mild mannered, persecuted individual that we hear about. Firstly, he did not invent the telescope for which he claims credit. He admitted it, but claimed that because he was the first astronomer to use it, he may as well have invented it. The incidents about his life that float around as truth are completely false, according to my sister and others in the same field of study. She gets infuriated when she hears the unreliable and untruthful stories circulating about him. I’ll stick with her assessment because of her in depth study of the man and the period in which he lived.
Sorry if this is really random but could you consider making a video regarding Mother Teresa. People are accusing her of certain atrocities while she was in Calcutta such as forced conversions, not using donations properly, as well as labeling her as a hypocrite for receiving care in a Californian hospital. How would you go about responding to these claims?
I think we need to be careful about talking about 'the Church' here, as if there was only one view among churchmen at the time. My memory of reading about the Galileo case is that he had many supporters among churchmen. I think the bishop of Siena was one of them.
Yes, he had many supporters as he presented a sound theory. But he tried to claim it as a fact and insulted many in the church, even though he couldn't actually prove his theory. The church was very happy to work with him up to that point.
Galileo‘s theory is so simply and convincing, of course he had many supporters among churchmen. Just like Darwin had many supporters among churchmen. Human being are not stupid.
He insulted the Pope, who was the head of state, using the Pope’s money. He was essentially guilty of misappropriating government funds. And he only got house arrest...in the papal palace.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 well, he was put away for "suspicion of heresy" and lese majeste. Ultimately, academic politics indicted him as well. None of this is a just reason to put someone away, at all -- even under house arrest with a stipend. Galileo's case was nothing like is presented by the socialist or Whig historians. But it wasn't good either.
@@claymcdermott718 good little Catholics will turn their eyes from injustice as long as the church tells them to. The church was wrong and Galileo was right and he spent the rest of his life on house arrest! Even if he did misuse money, it’s still not worth being on house arrest for the rest of your life!! The church was wrong no matter how you look at it (or don’t) !!
@@melindaanne6036 Wrong! The heliocentric theory has never been proven. The geocentric model has been proven time and time again. Galileo was wrong ....dead wrong. The Church was Right! Genesis 1:1👍🏻
Outstanding video! It's usually one of the first things people mention when you tell someone you are Catholic. The other day my niece was mentioning the wars of the 19th century and my uncle said: "No power is ever good, study the Catholic church and the horrible catastrophes they have done". Gladly I was there to give them some historical perspective, they all learn these things at school.
Years ago, PBS did a special on the Galileo Affair called Galileo's Battle for the Heavens. It is chock full of distortions and outright errors. In spite of this it is commonly used for instruction in school systems and college. I wrote a critical review trying to highlight the errors and distortions at www.scientus.org/Galileo-Battle-for-Heavens.html
“The church wouldn’t allow something as scientific fact unless it was convincingly demonstrated” Very good, so that shows they are skeptical about new ideas which is good but the mistake it does is to trust the initial ideas which are not convincing and nothing can be tested.
I've had this discussion, as well as discussions on other common misconceptions, so many times. And if I get any response back, as they usually stop after dropping a few facts on them, it's usually along the lines of, "So you're saying all of these scholars and historians that back up what I've said are wrong?" It's really hard to get over an appeal to authority fallacy with people. And so many people are not willing to take the time and look into things themselves, especially if it negates their world view.
Agreed, but that's why it's helpful to know enough to say that whatever they think "all these scholars" means - it's probably inaccurate. Voltaire's fanatical hatred for Christianity and the myths that he helped establish is not "all these scholars". There are more legitimate scholars who dispute those things. These are popular myths. Just like, the medieval used to believe the world was flat. That isn't popular because of academic scholarship. It's popular because of propaganda.
@@BrianHoldsworth 100% agree. But they're fed a version based on a number of scholars and they're taught that anyone that disagrees with those views are the ones twisting history. So while we know "all these scholars" is not anywhere near factually correct, it is to them. And opening their mind to other possibilities is extremely difficult, especially if it puts Christianity in a better light. I love digging into this stuff. Going back into the OT and discovering what things meant back in that ancient near-east culture instead of looking at it through a modern day lens is even more difficult due to that huge cultural difference. People don't understand that even to this day there are college courses which focus on helping you identify and overcome cultural differences. At least Galileo is not that far removed culturally and you mainly just need to convince people with the facts of the events.
Usually whenever someone does not convert to the Church it is for one or two misunderstandings about it. Whenever those misunderstandings are resolved, there is little good reason to not want to go into the Church.
As a biologist who wants to be a physician I hace to say. Take such.statements as those with a huge grain of salt and always investigate and know the context and fine details they are said in. It is very common for people to misquote and for people to add spin where there is non and people to speak in hyperbole in popular scientific talk with the general public. If 90% of the research were empirically wrong then people would be talking about it. Of course, one can be wrong in other ways and this is why context matyers. God bless you brother.
All science does is create provisional models for the purpose of prediction and control - as soon as a model better at prediction and control comes along, the old models are set aside. Science is a method, not a set of final, exclusive, complete truths. It's a process, a human-all-too-human process. Axioms, concepts and procedures. Nothing wrong with science - I absolutely love science and all the goodies it has come up with, like this iPad I am typing on - but it speaks a different language than religion - it does not negate religion, like Japanese does not negate German, like speech does not negate music, like karate does not negate ballet, like football does not negate ice hockey, like war does not negate a mother's love for her baby, like physics does not negate biology, and within physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics and electromagnetism and general relativity and quantum mechanics do not negate each other, even though they use different axioms, concepts and procedures. Even the very latest physics posits a totally mysterious dark energy to "explain" the observed expansion of the universe, posits a totally mysterious dark matter to "explain" the observed coherence of galaxies and posits a totally mysterious "field" from which subatomic particles/waves/energies are observed to emerge from and disappear into. The map is not the territory. It depends on what you want to achive. A nuclear bomb. Or a billion dollars. Or peace on earth and goodwill towards all mankind. Or free and creative and confident citizens. Or motivated, inspired and enthusiastic minds. All different activities. The fruits of the Holy Spirit. Joy, love and peace. By their fruits, ye shall know them. Cheers!
5:52 _"even though his conclusion was mostly right"_ What if it wasn't? _"he hadn't proven it"_ Has anyone else since? I'll remember hearing of Heliocentrism in a physics class - the physics teacher was a dear man to me, a son of a missionary, I considered him a fellow Christian (I was protestant back then) and I had been delving into the Galileo affair perhaps partly as a geek looking into encyclopedias. I was also a Young Earth Creationist. So, I asked the physics teacher, how do we know Heliocentrism is true? Well, the observed orbits very well fit the orbits calculated from Newtonian theory (which apparently didn't account for anything other than the Sun being in the centre, now Sungenis and a physicist from Croatia are challenging that : Earth could be _caught in_ the gravitational centre even if not constituting it), given the masses of the planets. In 2001, after debating on Distant Starlight problem (initial response = Kent Hovind's "very skinny triangles" - one would be hard set to triangulate even alpha Centauri from just observing parallax against clock times and objects on earth, actually one isn't even doing that, and to stars 13 billion light years away, it's not "hard set" it is impossible). Well, what after that debate? I went to an old books' shop, turned a few pages in an astronomy manual from 1980 (it included distinct informations on parallax, aberration, proper movement), and said to myself : "this is what I am looking for". Obviously I bought it. Next day, St. Bartholomew of 2001, I am a convinced Geocentric. Two observations, from the astronomy book, the largest observed proper movement (Barnard's star) is 10 arc seconds a year, while largest parallax is 0.76 arc seconds for alpha Centauri. Well, as I had no problem with angels moving stars and therefore no problem with circular proper movements - since "parallax" could be a proper movement in physical reality (though one behaving different from that observed for Barnard's star), parallax doesn't confirm Earth moving like lack of parallax would damn the theory. The other one is, we don't have direct weights of the masses of bodies in the solar system. We can't tell the solar system to stop for our convenience, then put the Sun in a scale and then put it back and ask the solar system to resume. All we are supposed to know about the masses are known only from deductions from the orbits - so, in deducing a mass from an orbit and then deducing a concord between mass and orbit from that deduced mass, you are in a circulus in demonstrando. Exit the idea Heliocentrism was proven after Galileo. Exit very definitely.
First, did you read my comment or stop at "see more" without clicking? Second ... _"Please get yourself a physics text book."_ For what topic? _"Galileo was wrong in an important respect,"_ Any important topic he was not wrong in when disagreeing with his judges? _"and astronomers were aware of it at the time."_ Like Heliocentrism not being proveable - still isn't, but astronomers have ceased to be aware of that one.
If i can add a few points here, as a lay man... The earth’s orbit, as all planetary orbits, is described as an ellipse, so the idea of a “center” is imprecise. There are two foci about which the earth revolves, the more obvious being the sun Second, the sun is not a static ball, but is also falling through the vast expanse, so the earth’s orbit is actually more of an elliptical corkscrew. But this is only possible because the sun is itself orbiting the galactic center. Third, it don’t stop there: the galaxy it itself spinning and revolving in its own way, so the whole of anything we can see doesn’t have a precise “center” Fourth, i thought Einstein’s relativity had demonstrated that all motion is relative to a frame, so that from the earth’s frame of reference everything else is moving around us, but from the moon’s perspective the earth is moving around us. Which is only to say that it’s difficult to prove an absolutely “center” of things when everything is constantly changing position absolutely and relative Fifth and finally, what difference does it make? Chesterton has a cool line critiquing our obsession with things too big to matter as we ignore the small things which do. Throwing around explanations of scientific systems doesn’t change the world, and really only feeds the pride of the person advocating the more recent consensus. So... who cares?
Well, whether we can trust our eyes is one of the small things which _do_ matter. It impacts our trust on the God who made our eyes and made the world we see with them. When I say about Galileo being wrong, I don't mean imprecise. I mean that men like Riccioli were precisely right about the configuration of the universe.
The parallax effect seen in the stars is so small that it is impossible to see with the naked eye. This is partly due to the fact that stars are sooo far away.
Church critics love to cite Gallileo's case, but conveniently omit the little details about his relationship to the Pope. They also like to forget about people such as Roger Bacon, Gregor Mendel and Georges LeMaitre, all of them contributors to scientific understanding and Catholic clergy at the same time. For those interested, hers's a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Catholic_Church
Great video I was just talking to someone on instagram about it because he said the Bible said the earth is the center of the universe and he said “somewhere between creation and the burning of Galileo”
Thanks for the video! It's worthwhile to remember that Galileo also made some strange forays into theology. One of his patronesses, the Medici Countess, actually reported him for interpreting Scripture in light of his theories. Also, the Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World System gets weird. It would certainly be odd to watch antitheists reading some of the mystical mathematics that he was proposing and still declare that he was their hero. Aside from ignoring the chaotic politics at the time and making personal enemies by being both an ass and unscientifically stubborn (he argued that the moon causing the tides was nonsense and was most abusive to the Jesuit who put forth the idea), Galileo was the only person who kept wanting to involve theology in his work. Dava Sobel's book, 'Galileo's Daughter' unintentionally exculpates the Churchmen at the time who had to deal with such a difficult person who was also largely living on the Church's dime (remember that academia was a clergyman's occupation, because only clergymen could count on steady funding, that's why Galileo was such a blackguard to his mistress and such a vile father; he was eventually gunning for Holy Orders to cement his earnings).
Brian, this reminds me of the Crusades. I forget the exact timeline but I believe sometime around the 1500's in Catholic Italy, Saladin (AKA, Salah ad-Din, the Muslim General who led the assault on the Crusader states) became a popular name for boys! Europeans in the 1500's even told stories about the great general Saladin who converted to Christianity! People's perceptions change throughout history all the time.
The Church is no more qualified to judge new research than any other scientists. Christians make the best peer reviewers but not because they are working from within the Institution of their church. Free inquiry is the first step to understanding. Any injustice against it should bother you even if it is rare. Thank you for the amazing work you do here
Incidentally, Aristotle's reasoning wasn't wrong; he was just lacking key information. That being that it is possible to observe that parallax effect he spoke of, just not on a day-to-day human scale with the naked eye. He had no way of knowing that the reason it's difficult to pick up on that is that everything in the universe is soul-crushingly far away, to the point that the human mind breaks if it even tries to comprehend the sheer distances.
Pavel Florensky, a Russian orthodox monk in the 20th century, wrote compelling theories on geocentrism. He died in the gulags, how does that compare to the house arrest Galileo had to do. Before you shrug your shoulders on geocentrism, it's actually possible to use any point as the origin point for a coordinate system. It's mathematically possible to construct a geocentric model of the universe, we could do a jupiter-centric model too, it doesn't matter, the math checks out. We use heliocentrism today more so because it is pragmatic for scientists, not because it's more true.
Second half of the video: I agree 99%. The one quibble is, you present it as if, had Galileo presented his work as still doubtful, it would have got a pass. In fact, he got the advise to portray it as a mathematical hypothesis. But we are not dealing with the modern distinction of "interesting hypothesis" vs "proven standard theory". We are dealing with supposition, unreal but for the sake of simplifying a demonstration, as opposed to a theoretic statement about physical reality. AND the stance about physical reality of Geocentrism owed more to the Bible than to either Ptolemy or Aristotle.
Ditzy.52 - All science does is create provisional models for the purpose of prediction and control - as soon as a model better at prediction and control comes along, the old models are set aside. Science is a method, not a set of final, exclusive, complete truths. It's a process, a human-all-too-human process. Axioms, concepts and procedures. Nothing wrong with science - I absolutely love science and all the goodies it has come up with, like this iPad I am typing on - but it speaks a different language than religion - it does not negate religion, like Japanese does not negate German, like speech does not negate music, like karate does not negate ballet, like football does not negate ice hockey, like war does not negate a mother's love for her baby, like physics does not negate biology, and within physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics and electromagnetism and general relativity and quantum mechanics do not negate each other, even though they use different axioms, concepts and procedures. Even the very latest physics posits a totally mysterious dark energy to "explain" the observed expansion of the universe, posits a totally mysterious dark matter to "explain" the observed coherence of galaxies and posits a totally mysterious "field" from which subatomic particles/waves/energies are observed to emerge from and disappear into. The map is not the territory. It depends on what you want to achive. A nuclear bomb. Or a billion dollars. Or peace on earth and goodwill towards all mankind. Or free and creative and confident citizens. Or motivated, inspired and enthusiastic minds. All different activities. The fruits of the Holy Spirit. Joy, love and peace. By their fruits, ye shall know them. Cheers!
@@virvisquevir3320 Actually no.... Dark Matter and Dark Energy ....was invented after scientists discover evidence that their Standard Model is false .... No evidence of these to this day has been found Genesis 1:1👍🏻
Religion is just a comfort blanket for bed-wetters, but you will never stop people from believing in the nonsense. A true atheist is a most humanist, as they know you only get one life. When a baby dies or a person before their time, this is a most profoundly painful internalised experience for an atheist, but life is so Beautiful and your time should be spent enjoying it because when it's over it's over.
There's no substance to your comment. "Religion is for bed-wetters" -- This is just ad hominem. "A true atheist is a most humanist as they know you only get one life" -- Someone who is religious also understands this and with greater conviction than one who is an atheist. "When a baby dies or a person before their time, this is a most profoundly painful internalised experience for an atheist, but life is so Beautiful and your time should be spent enjoying it because when it's over it's over." -- You speak as if an atheist and a religious person are different species, they're both human beings and internalise pain and suffering and have the ability to overcome this. Totally nonsensical and illogical train of thought.
Religion (especially Christianity and Islam) has always been an opponent to free thinking and science. Though Aristotle's and many others ideas influenced Scientific thought during that time, it was the Church that was reluctant to change as their ideas fit well with the descriptions of the Universe from scripture. Religion played a major role in terms of authority during that time. Similar problems were faced by Copernicus as well as Galilieo. Whether it is evolution or the shape of the earth, science has always challenged new ideas demanding proof, but is almost always religion that even after receiving proof is reluctant to change. Though Galilieo did not provide proper proofs, even if he did it is rational to assume his ideas would not have been taken seriously by the Church.
"Religion (especially Christianity and Islam) has always been an opponent to free thinking and science" -- Incorrect. Copernicus being a Catholic scientists didn't publish his writings due to fear of not being accepted by his scientific colleagues not because the Catholic Church was out to get him. Your whole comment is one big statement that says "I don't know what I'm babbling on about, I'm just repeating what I've heard and read here and there that supports my biases."
i've long argued the Galileo affair only to be ignored, but now i'm just going to show them this video :) well done, well explained. By the way, you should read " Bad Science by Ben Goldacre " he goes into great detail about what you talked about in relation to Journalism Science and other issues. A great and enjoyable read, if a little depressing when you realise the extent of the problem he outlines.
The best work I know of on this topic is the book "Galileo y el Vaticano" by Mariano Artigas & Melchor Sanchez de Toca... very extensive work with references to primary documents. Only available in Spanish and Italian as far as I know though
Right now I’m looking through your videos looking for when you said something like “at least I chose my own master and that’s as free thinking as you can get
I enjoy your videos. I am glad that I am not the only one who dismisses so called medical articles that begin with " may have'; 'might cause', 'may be a link' or other non committal phrases. Thanks for pointing this out. (oh and journalists love to use the same type of phrases in political discourse.)
So who were the scientists that put Galileo on trial? Also if the church won't allow something to be taught without proof why is the Exodus still in the Bible?
Thanks for telling a better perspective on Galileo and the Church. The Church having the responsibility of upholding to what is "scientific" at that time is a new angle to look into it. The Church maintaining the Vatican Observatory and at the same time being "anti-Science" is just absurd. It was like Galileo knew that "heliocentrism" is right but doesn't know how to put a good argument so he expressed his frustration and "threw a tantrum" through a book. He was allowed to explore the "heliocentrism" only theoretically but not publish it as a definite claim. But I read somewhere that he did so by putting this statement in one of the characters of his book, echoing the words of the Pope. He was put in house arrest by local authorities as he was already in his 70s and before he died he asked to publish his other books but was not granted because of that one book. This was all I knew until now and I never really dived into it before. Will try to read more about it. Thanks!
In the end, Galileo ended up agreeing with St. Robert Bellarmine, who firmly believed that the earth is motionless in the center of the universe. Please see below: “The falsity of the Copernican system must not on any account be doubted, especially by us Catholics, who have the irrefragable authority of Holy Scripture interpreted by the greatest masters in theology, whose agreement renders us certain of the stability of the Earth and the mobility of the sun around it. The conjectures of Copernicus and his followers offered to the contrary are all removed by that most sound argument, taken from the omnipotence of God. He being able to do in many, or rather in infinite ways, that which to our view and observation seems to be done in one particular way, we must not pretend to hamper God’s hand and tenaciously maintain that in which we may be mistaken.” ~ Galileo Galilei, in a letter to Francesco Rinuccini, 29 March 1641 (1) Notes: 1. Drake, Stillman, Galileo At Work: His Scientific Biography (Chicago, London, The University of Chicago Press, 1978), p. 417.
In Latino-American schools you hear that interpretation all over the place, even we have a stronger catholic background of that in the US (As far I'm concerned US religious tradition is mostly protestant)
It's so easy to read our modern cultural and political biases into history. Modern criminal trials are complicated. Even in the face of a large amount of evidence and witnesses, it can be difficult to get at the full truth of the matter. How much more when it comes to events long past? We shouldn't be convinced by overly simplified stories.
There is a bit more to this story. As I understand it, Galileo claimed that the earth moves in circular orbits, but the evidence at the time could not confirm it, because the planets do not move in circular orbits but in elliptical orbits. Pope Gregory had set up an observatory in 1580, with Jesuit astronomers in charge, when Galileo was 15. The Jesuits were very careful with their observations and would have been aware that they were not consistent with Galileo's theory, because Galileo's theory was incorrect.
While this is true, it would be rubbish to claim the condemnation was due to Galileo claiming circular rather than elliptic orbits. Two theses alone were condemned twice, first in connection with his book and then with himself. * Sun being immobile centre of universe (heretical) * Earth moving in orbit around Sun - literally "in the third heaven" - and also with a diurnal movement (at least erroneous). Neither of these theses would have changed by Kepler's rather than Galileo's version.
4:04 I'd like to note, the kind of parallax that Galileo and St. Robert were discussing in the first process is still missing. Both agreed the stars are in a sphere - or if you find it clearer, a spheric shell. If there is a parallax from Earth moving around Sun, all of the spheric shell should be showing a uniform parallax. Pisces should be smaller in August-September than around February-March before and after the Sun hides them. And Virgo should be smaller in February-March than around August-September before and after the Sun hides her. The ratio of observed angular distances should vary by comparable amounts. The result should tell us what the distance of each and all stars is to the Sun in the centre. However, the parallax or so called parallax observed in the early 19th C. instead tells us, if parallactic, if Earth moves, that stars are different distances, alpha Centauri closer than Vega, Vega closer than Sirius and so on. On the other hand, if angels move stars, the diversity of parallax in alpha Centauri, Vega, Sirius, could be the diverse "dance steps" in which angels move them. So, if Earth is still, alpha Centauri, Vega and Sirius definitely are moved by angels - and if their "parallaxes" are really parallaxes, and Earth is moving, the universe is arguably more like a beehive than a shell enclosing comparatively few moving objects. There are two problems if one assumes it is earth moving: * if the universe is quasi an infinite beehive, where is the "heaven" in which God is adored by angels and where the risen bodies of the blessed will be; * parallax would be just the first step in assessing stellar distances, but step after step lead to assessments like furthest seen stars being 13 billion lightyears and some more away from us, meaning they would have started shining those rays towards us 13 billion and some years ago - contradicting the Biblical timeline.
Nope. After everything, he was placed on house arrest in or near the Vatican. Had a servant to run errands, could explore the gardens, just couldn’t be out and about. I believe he could still do some research, but he burned most of his bridges with other astronomers and scientists so not much discussion with them happened.
To many people died by the hand of the church or their life's were completely destroyed. I am relieved that for so long the church lost it's power grip over the people, we can act free and we will be judged in the afterlife. There is no value in being a good Christian by force
th-cam.com/video/mxD9zv9QfpQ/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=BrigadaAntifraude Ever hear of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and the slaughter going on in Muslim countries these past centuries/
Very informative video. Although I never bought that "anti-scientist Church's attitude" narrative, I did not know much about the topic. Thank you for sharing this.
7:05 John Ioannidis constructed a statistical model from which he deduced that most research is incorrect. This was a mathematical analysis of probabilities, he did not evaluate treatment outcome nor did he analyze data from any study and showed that it was false. The 90% figure does not appear in the title of his article nor in the abstract. It appears, ironically enough, that Brian got the number from a jounalist's sensational headline. The church did not vet the medical treatement used in their hospitals, the methodology did not exist. The miasmic and humoral theories of disease remained in use until well into the 19th century with no objection by the church in spite of the fact that both were totally wrong. The Ptolemaic theory was no better supported by emirical observation than Galileo's. He had no evidence for epicycles, but it was an essential element of his theory. The only differnce between the two theories was that the first conformed with Church doctrine and the second did not. Doctrine has always been the measure the church uses to judge science, politics and social movements. The church only yield and adjust doctrine when forced by evidece or social pressure to do so.
So the fact that Galileo was imprisoned for nine years by the church and under house arrest until his death and holds science to a greater standard than what it is capable of with regards to its own theistic arguments... got ya 👍
David Bentley Hart has a great chapter on this in his book Atheist Delusions: the Christian revolution and its fashionable enemies. Tycho was the one who actually got it right lol
Read the Stanford encyclopedia article about Galileo: plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/#4 The basic error of the Roman Catholic Church is identifying scientific claims with religious claims. It is an epistemological error with structural or systemic causes. We might even describe this error as a social sin.
The Church is divine/human organism, the Body of Christ. If your Church persecuted someone who was correct on a matter for the sake of defending falsehood, then maybe you should consider the possibility that what you call a church may not be a church at all.
That's actually very interesting. I must admit I was guilty of this prejudice. I am more bothered with the Church's persecution of Bible translators and their translations (about which I would also love to be proven wrong).
'Historical revisionism,' he says as he gives the current Catholic version of the Galileo case which they had to conjure up when they fell for the lie that stellar aberration, parallax and Foucault's pendulum supposedly proved the Church of 1616 and 1633 wrong. Now you do not have to take my word for it but maybe by physicists like those below. ‘Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation.’---Bertrand Russell ‘All modern cosmology stands or falls with this concept [the Copernican Principle] being correct, even though, to quote a text approved by Einstein: “We cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any experiment proved the Earth in motion.”’---Lincoln Barnett The definitive problem for their heliocentric ‘proofs’ that the Earth revolves round the sun, came to a head in the wake of the famous Airy (1870-1) and Michelson & Morley (1887) experiments that failed to find any orbiting of the Earth.. But this lie, that the Church of 1616 and 1633 was proven wrong, is ignored as it suits both in Church and State to who went along with the lie for so long that: ‘I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truths if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.’ ’ --- Leo Tolstoy.
Brian, I love your videos and I share them all the time. I liked (literally and with the thumbs up) this video, but there are some things I wish you researched before going to publication. You miss on some very key points. First, and I think, maybe most important, you accept the exaggeration of Galileo's punishment (though I love that you compare real atrocities to Galileo's plight...but, his plight is greatly exaggerated). Second, you left out that he was given permission by Pope Urban to write and publish a comparison of the two systems with the admonishment that he could not advocate on his own side. But, in his dialogue, Galileo sets those advocating for the Earth-centered model as a character named, when translated to English, 'Simpleton' (which was, even in our time, a great disrespect). Third, you left out the, as of Galileo's time, yet undiscovered work of Brahe and Newton. Fourth, you left out Copernicus. Finally, you failed to place Galileo properly in his time, as we so blithely do with really any historical figure that we don't like. Again, I think your work is suburb. I hope this doesn't come as a criticism to the video or you, just a wish that you had read more before putting the video together.
I appreciate the comment. I'm familiar with all those elements of the story, but I didn't include them because I wasn't trying to provide a comprehensive explanation of what happened. Instead, I was trying to offer a unique contribution to the large amount of work that has already been done by other Catholic apologists on this topic which includes many of the points you made.
Hi Brian great video thanks. I think you would interested in the book Galileo was wrong : The Church was Right : by Robert Sungenis & (Rod ? ) Bennet , a very detailed look the Galileo Affair.
If anything, the Bible points to Heaven (where the throne of God is) being the centre of all of creation and the rest of creation revolving around Heaven.
YESSS!!! This is one of THE BIGGEST anti Catholic lies floating around. I remember in my astronomy class my last semester of college, our professor corrected it & explained and I was SHOOK. The false narrative is taught in U.S. public school soooo cringy!!
LizziesAnswers I'm surprised your prof corrected it, but I went to a secular university. I found out the facts from a BBC doc. The false narrative is still being presented in the primary grades. I've subbed for science teachers who leave an old ABC After School Special video that makes Galileo come across as a mild mannered innocent, while the men of the Church come across as power hungry zealots. Then there's the old NASA site for school children, Star Child. In a previous version of the site, the biographies for all the astronomers who lived around the time of Galileo included a cut and paste line: "In those days the Catholic Church was very powerful." Sometimes it was laughable how awkward the line was placed at inappropriate or irrelevant parts of the bios, but it was offensive to Catholics, and I protested. The current version of Star Child doesn't include the cut and paste line in the bio for Tycho Brahe any more, but I haven't checked the rest. There's a companion teacher site for Star Child that still emphasizes falsehoods such as, "Because the Church taught that the Earth was central, Copernicus's theory was regarded as heresy." (teacherlink.ed.usu.edu).
Me imagino
Ah, you like Brian too?
I had a few quibbles on Brian's video, but except for a word or two referring back to first half, I totally support second half:
assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2020/02/with-brian-holdsworth-on-galileo-affair.html
Just last semester my general biology professor brought up the Galileo incident as an example of some people being so stubborn as to not change their minds in the face of overwhelming evidence (he was talking about logistic curves and whether the upper asymptote is sharp or smooth). I got to talk to him about the nuances of the Galileo incident after class for a couple days, he did some research into it, and came back to me basically converted, and yet concerned as to why the history wasn’t very clear.
@@killianmiller6107 Well, tell him to reformulate that is why the historiography isn't very clear.
A fairly good hunch is, the Galileo "legend" (legends don't need to be untrue, but you know which one I mean, and this one is), has been pushed by enemies of the Church, starting with Freemasons and before them English Protestants for a few centuries.
Generations of schoolboys have been exposed to it and often to little or no alternative versions. That's part of the "perks" with compulsory school to the people type I mentioned.
Furthermore, Galileo was not the first person of his day to propose Heliocentrism, that was Copernicus, a Polish priest (or canon, I've read both), and he had no problems with the Church because he frankly admitted that it was not proven, but simply made the model of orbital mechanics simpler, though not much more accurate (he posited circular rather than elliptical orbits). He was so highly thought of that he was asked by Pope Gregory to help reform the calendar to the present "Gregorian" calendar with the improved leap year rule. On Galileo, I recommend the wonderful book "Galileo's Daughter" by Dava Sobel who talks about Galileo and his daughter, a nun who cared for him toward the end of his life.
Copernicus was so scared of the church that he did not publish his theory until he was on his death bed.
@@sjsupa Evidence for the claim you are making?
@@gaiusoctavius5935
That is true ....
@@reclavea Baseless claims aren't evidence sadly.
@@sjsupa _Copernicus did not want to publish his ideas because he was afraid of the Church's reaction, but because, as a perfectionist, he never thought it ready to be published._
Great job on this video! While researching the history of Alchemy, I came across an article on Galileo that totally changed my perspective of the Catholic Church with the understanding that in that time period, there was no separation of Church and State. With this new understanding, I started researching more about the true history of many scientist of the time period and realized how much the Catholic Church embraces science, etc.... Now I am joining RCIA to convert to Catholicism 🤷🏻♀️
@A waterfall Henry VIII didn't actually intend to leave catholicism and died believing he was catholic despite having set himself up as the head of the local national church within the catholic church. This was a disagreement in ecclesiology with Rome rather than an intentional sundering. The departure from professing catholicism started with Edward and the Edwardian reforms of the anglican church.
@@syedhasanahmed3514 The facts suggest otherwise. Henry VIII was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for divorcing Catherine of Aragon (lack of a male heir) and having multiple extramarital affairs (at least 6). He executed opponents (St. Thomas More, clergy, and hundreds of protesters) and established the Church of England--with himself conveniently as head--to nullify his marriage to Catherine and to legitimize 5 more "marriages" (the six: divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived). Henry VIII appointed Thomas Cromwell, an extremely vicious anti-Catholic, as Chief Minister. He approved of Cromwell's Dissolution of the Monasteries (and convents, churches/cathedrals, schools and hospitals) and destruction of shrines, which the king used to enrich himself and newly appointed cronies, and the Oath of Royal Supremacy, which marked opponents with treason and execution (esp. More and Fisher). Make no mistake, Henry VIII used the Protestant Revolution--Reformation is a misnomer--as a power grab opportunity and a chance to establish a monarch/state-run church, similar to what often happened on the continent. It's ironic that neither the English monarch nor the Church of England have much authority anymore in England. Henry used opponents to the Catholic Church for political expedience and appropriated convenient aspects of Catholic theology and sacraments for his now subservient Church of England. Worthwhile reading: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England, www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-dissolution-of-the-monasteries, www.newadvent.org/cathen/10455a.htm, and www.newadvent.org/cathen/05445a.htm.
I feel sorry for you. I"m so much happier in the four years since I left Catholicism.
Michael Flores if being happy is your goal you should probably raise the bar.
@@michaelflores9220
The heliocentric theory has never been proven.
The geocentric model has been proven time and time again.
Galileo was wrong ....dead wrong.
The Church was Right
Genesis 1:1👍🏻
what is sad is that i was taught the incorrect story of the galileo affair in a catholic grade school
Same
Also, Copernicus had also published an heliocentric theory of the universe, properly vetted and supported which was given the Imprimatur and he was able to publish it. He was definitely not excommunicated because his science was good .
Most people also ignore the fact that Galileo admitted his error in his method and his way of taking revenge on his critics and was reconciled utterly with the Church prior to his death. He received Extreme Unction and died a devout Catholic.
Galileo was allowed to publish his work by the Church - provided he note that he hadn't proven any of his theories conclusively yet he continued to claim otherwise. His rudimentary heresy interogations led to nothing and the entire affair was seen as nothing but drama and theatrics
A scientific theory isn't proven. It's not how science works. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
@Sunbro Nope! Scientific theories (and hypotheses) are either falsified or not falsified. A theory not being falsified is not the same as it has been proven to be true. Proving things is the realm of math and philosophy.
@Sunbro
The heliocentric theory has never been proven.
The geocentric model has been proven time and time again.
Galileo was wrong ....dead wrong.
Genesis 1:1👍🏻
@@michaelanderson4849 Galileo was a scientist, but the publication in question defended a geometric model. Even the best empirical observations couldn't support a theory that doesn't mathematically work, and the observations in question were not very useful anyway - either to him or to Kepler, Newton, etc. Although he made significant contributions to geometry and astronomy generally, his association with the Copernican revolution in particular is mostly cultural and historical, because he neither proved his math nor supported his physical theory.
In this work, he did take a two-pronged approach, mathematical and empirical. The Church sanctioned his publication because his peers rejected both aspects of it. Most importantly, the physics didn't work. He actually could have proven that a Copernican model worked - with mathematical proofs. He didn't. He offered astronomical observations that were consistent with the existing epicyclical theory, so were inconsequential. And he offered vague arguments that were shown to be false within his lifetime.
Such a paper, were it submitted today, would never make it past peer review. The Catholic scientific apparatus in that time worked a bit differently, but imprimatur functioned analogously and was ultimately the model for peer review. The modern architecture of scientific literature is based on that of late medieval scientific literature, but decentralized. In either system, Galileo's paper was horrible because its arguments were fallacious and based on empirically false premises (like tidal moment) and its math didn't work.
It was Kepler who actually contributed proofs for a heliocentric model. He did it by positing elliptical orbits and he ended up being both physically and empirically correct in the broad sense, though it was not demonstrated with any significant cogency until Newton. It would have been very difficult for Galileo to empirically support heliocentrism, but he could have contributed an inductive connection between astronomical observations of the influence of celestial bodies on each other, using his skills as a physicist/engineer.
Contrary to the story many people are told in high school physics classes, people understood principles of motion before Newton. Galileo himself understood inertia so well that he used it in his famous example illustrating one of his greatest contributions, the concept of Galilean transformation. And in fact, the word inertia is from Kepler, not Newton. Newton formulated the laws in their famous form, of course, but the basic force of the law of inertia was well understood by observation.
There was a sequence of major discoveries throughout the life of the Church that led up to the demonstration of heliocentrism. Rodney Stark wrote about that sequence in his chapter on history of science in Bearing False Witness. So, by the time of Galileo it was possible for Galileo to discern universal gravitation and use it to make predictions of orbits that he had the astronomical technology to test. Everything he needed was at his disposal, but he was busy using it to investigate other ideas, particularly concerning tides and the structure of moons.
It's actually amazing, considering his focus on tides and moons, that he didn't figure this stuff out first. All of this stuff _was_ ultimately connected, but by Isaac Newton, who knocked out universal gravitation, the tides, and heliocentric orbits all in one fell swoop. So Galileo easily could have made a strong case for a Copernican model. But instead he published unsubstantiated and false assertions in what amounted to a hit piece against the pope, whom he insulted through veiled jabs at a character he named Simplicius.
@@reclavea You can't be serious. You believe in epicycles then? Like I alluded to in my previous post, Newton proved a Keplerian model long ago. His predictions have been successfully tested countless times. The model works so well that it enables us to land spacecraft on other planets and moons, and to perform gravitational slingshots by sending rockets near where we predict a planet will be with extreme precision. If the model didn't work, none of this would be possible. It would be a hell of a coincidence for those calculations to somehow accidentally work in practice _every time_ despite being completely wrong. It's practically impossible. Gravitational slingshot maneuvers work precisely because the planets' orbits are known so precisely. If we were off by even a fraction of a degree, the whole mission would be forfeit. The craft would either crash into the planet or fly off into the void of space. Also, if the Ptolemaic model was correct, we would need to perform extremely complex calculations to account for epicycles for every space mission except those to the moon. The moon is the only "planet" whose empirically observed path across the sky doesn't require epicycles in the Ptolemaic model. Of course, the reason it doesn't require epicycles is because it's the only "planet" that does, in fact, orbit the Earth. If the geocentric model were true it would be an awfully strange coincidence for just one of the planets to not have any epicycle at all. And it would be an even stranger coincidence for nearly all our space missions to succeed despite calculating based on ordinary elliptical orbits around the sun instead of based on epicyclical, circular orbits around the Earth.
From the Inquisition to the Salmen Witch Trials, Galileo and the Crusades, I'm learning throughout history that Catholics tend to be on the right side of things, but don't get realized for it until later down the line in history. I can't wait to finish RCIA and become Catholic.
Just so you know - the Salem witch trials were undertaken by the Puritans, a Protestant sect in North America. Other than that you're spot on.
I AM VERY SORRY BUT THE INQUISITION? PLEASE.
@@w.8424 By the Jesuits.
My sister received her PhD in Religious Studies. She had to go to primary sources and study valid historical documents about Galileo.
Don’t even broach the subject of this man with her ( and I have noted other scholars who have studied his life in depth who agree with her )
Apparently, he was not the mild mannered, persecuted individual that we hear about.
Firstly, he did not invent the telescope for which he claims credit. He admitted it, but claimed that because he was the first astronomer to use it, he may as well have invented it.
The incidents about his life that float around as truth are completely false, according to my sister and others in the same field of study.
She gets infuriated when she hears the unreliable and untruthful stories circulating about him.
I’ll stick with her assessment because of her in depth study of the man and the period in which he lived.
Sorry if this is really random but could you consider making a video regarding Mother Teresa. People are accusing her of certain atrocities while she was in Calcutta such as forced conversions, not using donations properly, as well as labeling her as a hypocrite for receiving care in a Californian hospital. How would you go about responding to these claims?
Beautifully and truly articulated. Reality.
I very much appreciate your well thought out and intelligently communicated posts. Thank you for your ministry.
I think we need to be careful about talking about 'the Church' here, as if there was only one view among churchmen at the time. My memory of reading about the Galileo case is that he had many supporters among churchmen. I think the bishop of Siena was one of them.
Alice Pavey - that's the evidence of propaganda relying on stereotype prejudice.
The Pope was a supporter for a time too, till Galileo soured that
Yes, he had many supporters as he presented a sound theory. But he tried to claim it as a fact and insulted many in the church, even though he couldn't actually prove his theory. The church was very happy to work with him up to that point.
Galileo‘s theory is so simply and convincing, of course he had many supporters among churchmen. Just like Darwin had many supporters among churchmen. Human being are not stupid.
He insulted the Pope after a warning and only got housearrest. Big whoop.
He insulted the Pope, who was the head of state, using the Pope’s money. He was essentially guilty of misappropriating government funds. And he only got house arrest...in the papal palace.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 well, he was put away for "suspicion of heresy" and lese majeste.
Ultimately, academic politics indicted him as well.
None of this is a just reason to put someone away, at all -- even under house arrest with a stipend.
Galileo's case was nothing like is presented by the socialist or Whig historians. But it wasn't good either.
Clay McDermott misappropriating state funds is absolutely grounds for house arrest
@@claymcdermott718 good little Catholics will turn their eyes from injustice as long as the church tells them to. The church was wrong and Galileo was right and he spent the rest of his life on house arrest! Even if he did misuse money, it’s still not worth being on house arrest for the rest of your life!! The church was wrong no matter how you look at it (or don’t) !!
@@melindaanne6036
Wrong!
The heliocentric theory has never been proven.
The geocentric model has been proven time and time again.
Galileo was wrong ....dead wrong.
The Church was Right!
Genesis 1:1👍🏻
Outstanding video! It's usually one of the first things people mention when you tell someone you are Catholic. The other day my niece was mentioning the wars of the 19th century and my uncle said: "No power is ever good, study the Catholic church and the horrible catastrophes they have done". Gladly I was there to give them some historical perspective, they all learn these things at school.
Years ago, PBS did a special on the Galileo Affair called Galileo's Battle for the Heavens. It is chock full of distortions and outright errors. In spite of this it is commonly used for instruction in school systems and college. I wrote a critical review trying to highlight the errors and distortions at www.scientus.org/Galileo-Battle-for-Heavens.html
“The church wouldn’t allow something as scientific fact unless it was convincingly demonstrated”
Very good, so that shows they are skeptical about new ideas which is good but the mistake it does is to trust the initial ideas which are not convincing and nothing can be tested.
I wish I could show this when I sub for middle school and high school science teachers.
I've had this discussion, as well as discussions on other common misconceptions, so many times. And if I get any response back, as they usually stop after dropping a few facts on them, it's usually along the lines of, "So you're saying all of these scholars and historians that back up what I've said are wrong?" It's really hard to get over an appeal to authority fallacy with people. And so many people are not willing to take the time and look into things themselves, especially if it negates their world view.
Agreed, but that's why it's helpful to know enough to say that whatever they think "all these scholars" means - it's probably inaccurate. Voltaire's fanatical hatred for Christianity and the myths that he helped establish is not "all these scholars". There are more legitimate scholars who dispute those things. These are popular myths. Just like, the medieval used to believe the world was flat. That isn't popular because of academic scholarship. It's popular because of propaganda.
@@BrianHoldsworth 100% agree. But they're fed a version based on a number of scholars and they're taught that anyone that disagrees with those views are the ones twisting history. So while we know "all these scholars" is not anywhere near factually correct, it is to them. And opening their mind to other possibilities is extremely difficult, especially if it puts Christianity in a better light.
I love digging into this stuff. Going back into the OT and discovering what things meant back in that ancient near-east culture instead of looking at it through a modern day lens is even more difficult due to that huge cultural difference. People don't understand that even to this day there are college courses which focus on helping you identify and overcome cultural differences. At least Galileo is not that far removed culturally and you mainly just need to convince people with the facts of the events.
Usually whenever someone does not convert to the Church it is for one or two misunderstandings about it. Whenever those misunderstandings are resolved, there is little good reason to not want to go into the Church.
As a biologist who wants to be a physician I hace to say. Take such.statements as those with a huge grain of salt and always investigate and know the context and fine details they are said in. It is very common for people to misquote and for people to add spin where there is non and people to speak in hyperbole in popular scientific talk with the general public. If 90% of the research were empirically wrong then people would be talking about it. Of course, one can be wrong in other ways and this is why context matyers.
God bless you brother.
All science does is create provisional models for the purpose of prediction and control - as soon as a model better at prediction and control comes along, the old models are set aside.
Science is a method, not a set of final, exclusive, complete truths. It's a process, a human-all-too-human process. Axioms, concepts and procedures.
Nothing wrong with science - I absolutely love science and all the goodies it has come up with, like this iPad I am typing on - but it speaks a different language than religion - it does not negate religion, like Japanese does not negate German, like speech does not negate music, like karate does not negate ballet, like football does not negate ice hockey, like war does not negate a mother's love for her baby, like physics does not negate biology, and within physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics and electromagnetism and general relativity and quantum mechanics do not negate each other, even though they use different axioms, concepts and procedures.
Even the very latest physics posits a totally mysterious dark energy to "explain" the observed expansion of the universe, posits a totally mysterious dark matter to "explain" the observed coherence of galaxies and posits a totally mysterious "field" from which subatomic particles/waves/energies are observed to emerge from and disappear into.
The map is not the territory.
It depends on what you want to achive. A nuclear bomb. Or a billion dollars. Or peace on earth and goodwill towards all mankind. Or free and creative and confident citizens. Or motivated, inspired and enthusiastic minds. All different activities. The fruits of the Holy Spirit. Joy, love and peace. By their fruits, ye shall know them. Cheers!
In my opinion you are extremely talented for this kind of things. May God bless you and keep you going for a long time.
5:52 _"even though his conclusion was mostly right"_
What if it wasn't?
_"he hadn't proven it"_
Has anyone else since?
I'll remember hearing of Heliocentrism in a physics class - the physics teacher was a dear man to me, a son of a missionary, I considered him a fellow Christian (I was protestant back then) and I had been delving into the Galileo affair perhaps partly as a geek looking into encyclopedias.
I was also a Young Earth Creationist. So, I asked the physics teacher, how do we know Heliocentrism is true?
Well, the observed orbits very well fit the orbits calculated from Newtonian theory (which apparently didn't account for anything other than the Sun being in the centre, now Sungenis and a physicist from Croatia are challenging that : Earth could be _caught in_ the gravitational centre even if not constituting it), given the masses of the planets.
In 2001, after debating on Distant Starlight problem (initial response = Kent Hovind's "very skinny triangles" - one would be hard set to triangulate even alpha Centauri from just observing parallax against clock times and objects on earth, actually one isn't even doing that, and to stars 13 billion light years away, it's not "hard set" it is impossible).
Well, what after that debate? I went to an old books' shop, turned a few pages in an astronomy manual from 1980 (it included distinct informations on parallax, aberration, proper movement), and said to myself : "this is what I am looking for". Obviously I bought it.
Next day, St. Bartholomew of 2001, I am a convinced Geocentric.
Two observations, from the astronomy book, the largest observed proper movement (Barnard's star) is 10 arc seconds a year, while largest parallax is 0.76 arc seconds for alpha Centauri. Well, as I had no problem with angels moving stars and therefore no problem with circular proper movements - since "parallax" could be a proper movement in physical reality (though one behaving different from that observed for Barnard's star), parallax doesn't confirm Earth moving like lack of parallax would damn the theory.
The other one is, we don't have direct weights of the masses of bodies in the solar system. We can't tell the solar system to stop for our convenience, then put the Sun in a scale and then put it back and ask the solar system to resume. All we are supposed to know about the masses are known only from deductions from the orbits - so, in deducing a mass from an orbit and then deducing a concord between mass and orbit from that deduced mass, you are in a circulus in demonstrando.
Exit the idea Heliocentrism was proven after Galileo. Exit very definitely.
Please get yourself a physics text book. Galileo was wrong in an important respect, and astronomers were aware of it at the time.
First, did you read my comment or stop at "see more" without clicking? Second ...
_"Please get yourself a physics text book."_
For what topic?
_"Galileo was wrong in an important respect,"_
Any important topic he was not wrong in when disagreeing with his judges?
_"and astronomers were aware of it at the time."_
Like Heliocentrism not being proveable - still isn't, but astronomers have ceased to be aware of that one.
If i can add a few points here, as a lay man...
The earth’s orbit, as all planetary orbits, is described as an ellipse, so the idea of a “center” is imprecise. There are two foci about which the earth revolves, the more obvious being the sun
Second, the sun is not a static ball, but is also falling through the vast expanse, so the earth’s orbit is actually more of an elliptical corkscrew. But this is only possible because the sun is itself orbiting the galactic center.
Third, it don’t stop there: the galaxy it itself spinning and revolving in its own way, so the whole of anything we can see doesn’t have a precise “center”
Fourth, i thought Einstein’s relativity had demonstrated that all motion is relative to a frame, so that from the earth’s frame of reference everything else is moving around us, but from the moon’s perspective the earth is moving around us. Which is only to say that it’s difficult to prove an absolutely “center” of things when everything is constantly changing position absolutely and relative
Fifth and finally, what difference does it make? Chesterton has a cool line critiquing our obsession with things too big to matter as we ignore the small things which do. Throwing around explanations of scientific systems doesn’t change the world, and really only feeds the pride of the person advocating the more recent consensus. So... who cares?
Well, whether we can trust our eyes is one of the small things which _do_ matter. It impacts our trust on the God who made our eyes and made the world we see with them.
When I say about Galileo being wrong, I don't mean imprecise.
I mean that men like Riccioli were precisely right about the configuration of the universe.
The parallax effect seen in the stars is so small that it is impossible to see with the naked eye. This is partly due to the fact that stars are sooo far away.
Can you do a video on Lent fasting and general Paschal preparation?
Thank you for explaining this "Science" vs. "Science" argument and skewed public perspective, Brian. I took something new away from this.
Church critics love to cite Gallileo's case, but conveniently omit the little details about his relationship to the Pope. They also like to forget about people such as Roger Bacon, Gregor Mendel and Georges LeMaitre, all of them contributors to scientific understanding and Catholic clergy at the same time. For those interested, hers's a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Catholic_Church
Brian, what is the piece of music you play at the beginning of your videos? It’s beautiful!
Great video I was just talking to someone on instagram about it because he said the Bible said the earth is the center of the universe and he said “somewhere between creation and the burning of Galileo”
Thanks for the video! It's worthwhile to remember that Galileo also made some strange forays into theology. One of his patronesses, the Medici Countess, actually reported him for interpreting Scripture in light of his theories. Also, the Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World System gets weird. It would certainly be odd to watch antitheists reading some of the mystical mathematics that he was proposing and still declare that he was their hero. Aside from ignoring the chaotic politics at the time and making personal enemies by being both an ass and unscientifically stubborn (he argued that the moon causing the tides was nonsense and was most abusive to the Jesuit who put forth the idea), Galileo was the only person who kept wanting to involve theology in his work. Dava Sobel's book, 'Galileo's Daughter' unintentionally exculpates the Churchmen at the time who had to deal with such a difficult person who was also largely living on the Church's dime (remember that academia was a clergyman's occupation, because only clergymen could count on steady funding, that's why Galileo was such a blackguard to his mistress and such a vile father; he was eventually gunning for Holy Orders to cement his earnings).
Brian, this reminds me of the Crusades. I forget the exact timeline but I believe sometime around the 1500's in Catholic Italy, Saladin (AKA, Salah ad-Din, the Muslim General who led the assault on the Crusader states) became a popular name for boys!
Europeans in the 1500's even told stories about the great general Saladin who converted to Christianity!
People's perceptions change throughout history all the time.
The Church is no more qualified to judge new research than any other scientists. Christians make the best peer reviewers but not because they are working from within the Institution of their church.
Free inquiry is the first step to understanding. Any injustice against it should bother you even if it is rare.
Thank you for the amazing work you do here
Brian: *talks about how science has no scrutiny*
Me: So this is where we get flat-earthers...
Incidentally, Aristotle's reasoning wasn't wrong; he was just lacking key information. That being that it is possible to observe that parallax effect he spoke of, just not on a day-to-day human scale with the naked eye. He had no way of knowing that the reason it's difficult to pick up on that is that everything in the universe is soul-crushingly far away, to the point that the human mind breaks if it even tries to comprehend the sheer distances.
Pavel Florensky, a Russian orthodox monk in the 20th century, wrote compelling theories on geocentrism. He died in the gulags, how does that compare to the house arrest Galileo had to do.
Before you shrug your shoulders on geocentrism, it's actually possible to use any point as the origin point for a coordinate system. It's mathematically possible to construct a geocentric model of the universe, we could do a jupiter-centric model too, it doesn't matter, the math checks out. We use heliocentrism today more so because it is pragmatic for scientists, not because it's more true.
It's the current year+5, people still believe Galileo was burned at the stake.
Second half of the video:
I agree 99%. The one quibble is, you present it as if, had Galileo presented his work as still doubtful, it would have got a pass.
In fact, he got the advise to portray it as a mathematical hypothesis. But we are not dealing with the modern distinction of "interesting hypothesis" vs "proven standard theory". We are dealing with supposition, unreal but for the sake of simplifying a demonstration, as opposed to a theoretic statement about physical reality.
AND the stance about physical reality of Geocentrism owed more to the Bible than to either Ptolemy or Aristotle.
Absolutely brilliant. I always wanted to be able to explain how the Church was right. Now I have your video to show others. Thank you so much.
Ditzy.52 - All science does is create provisional models for the purpose of prediction and control - as soon as a model better at prediction and control comes along, the old models are set aside.
Science is a method, not a set of final, exclusive, complete truths. It's a process, a human-all-too-human process. Axioms, concepts and procedures.
Nothing wrong with science - I absolutely love science and all the goodies it has come up with, like this iPad I am typing on - but it speaks a different language than religion - it does not negate religion, like Japanese does not negate German, like speech does not negate music, like karate does not negate ballet, like football does not negate ice hockey, like war does not negate a mother's love for her baby, like physics does not negate biology, and within physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics and electromagnetism and general relativity and quantum mechanics do not negate each other, even though they use different axioms, concepts and procedures.
Even the very latest physics posits a totally mysterious dark energy to "explain" the observed expansion of the universe, posits a totally mysterious dark matter to "explain" the observed coherence of galaxies and posits a totally mysterious "field" from which subatomic particles/waves/energies are observed to emerge from and disappear into.
The map is not the territory.
It depends on what you want to achive. A nuclear bomb. Or a billion dollars. Or peace on earth and goodwill towards all mankind. Or free and creative and confident citizens. Or motivated, inspired and enthusiastic minds. All different activities. The fruits of the Holy Spirit. Joy, love and peace. By their fruits, ye shall know them. Cheers!
@@virvisquevir3320 Actually no....
Dark Matter and Dark Energy ....was invented after scientists discover evidence that their Standard Model is false ....
No evidence of these to this day has been found
Genesis 1:1👍🏻
You should do a video on G. K. Chesterton on the "everlasting man"
(protestan reformed man here)
I don't usually agree with you, but this was a home run. Well done!
As a trained Bio-statistician, I appreciate your points on the scrutiny of our modern day scientific "achievements" through journals.
Well spoken Brian, we all need to come to the TRUTH and your are another of these truthsayers. God bless. Prayers for you continuing efforts.
Religion is just a comfort blanket for bed-wetters, but you will never stop people from believing in the nonsense.
A true atheist is a most humanist, as they know you only get one life. When a baby dies or a person before their time, this is a most profoundly painful internalised experience for an atheist, but life is so Beautiful and your time should be spent enjoying it because when it's over it's over.
There's no substance to your comment.
"Religion is for bed-wetters" -- This is just ad hominem.
"A true atheist is a most humanist as they know you only get one life" -- Someone who is religious also understands this and with greater conviction than one who is an atheist.
"When a baby dies or a person before their time, this is a most profoundly painful internalised experience for an atheist, but life is so Beautiful and your time should be spent enjoying it because when it's over it's over." -- You speak as if an atheist and a religious person are different species, they're both human beings and internalise pain and suffering and have the ability to overcome this. Totally nonsensical and illogical train of thought.
@@bobaphat3676 yeah, it's ad hominem. we're ad-ing your hominem. what are you gonna do about it, you repulsive imp?
Religion (especially Christianity and Islam) has always been an opponent to free thinking and science. Though Aristotle's and many others ideas influenced Scientific thought during that time, it was the Church that was reluctant to change as their ideas fit well with the descriptions of the Universe from scripture. Religion played a major role in terms of authority during that time. Similar problems were faced by Copernicus as well as Galilieo. Whether it is evolution or the shape of the earth, science has always challenged new ideas demanding proof, but is almost always religion that even after receiving proof is reluctant to change. Though Galilieo did not provide proper proofs, even if he did it is rational to assume his ideas would not have been taken seriously by the Church.
"Religion (especially Christianity and Islam) has always been an opponent to free thinking and science" -- Incorrect. Copernicus being a Catholic scientists didn't publish his writings due to fear of not being accepted by his scientific colleagues not because the Catholic Church was out to get him. Your whole comment is one big statement that says "I don't know what I'm babbling on about, I'm just repeating what I've heard and read here and there that supports my biases."
i've long argued the Galileo affair only to be ignored, but now i'm just going to show them this video :) well done, well explained. By the way, you should read " Bad Science by Ben Goldacre " he goes into great detail about what you talked about in relation to Journalism Science and other issues. A great and enjoyable read, if a little depressing when you realise the extent of the problem he outlines.
Thank you so much. God bless you more and keep you safe!
I had never thought about the benefits of the Church's scrutiny of scientific claims in contrast to the jumbled mess we have today. Thank you!
The best work I know of on this topic is the book "Galileo y el Vaticano" by Mariano Artigas & Melchor Sanchez de Toca... very extensive work with references to primary documents. Only available in Spanish and Italian as far as I know though
But it is the parallax of the movements of Mars compared to Jupiter that is the very reason for the Heliocentric model being accepted.
Right now I’m looking through your videos looking for when you said something like “at least I chose my own master and that’s as free thinking as you can get
th-cam.com/video/kA-Q4_UjoVk/w-d-xo.html
Thanks, Brian. Well done!
Can I get the source of the music in the opening?
brody smith I second that
It’s called “introit for confirmation” and you can find it on SoundCloud under Paul Jernberg
I enjoy your videos. I am glad that I am not the only one who dismisses so called medical articles that begin with " may have'; 'might cause', 'may be a link' or other non committal phrases. Thanks for pointing this out. (oh and journalists love to use the same type of phrases in political discourse.)
So who were the scientists that put Galileo on trial? Also if the church won't allow something to be taught without proof why is the Exodus still in the Bible?
Thanks for telling a better perspective on Galileo and the Church. The Church having the responsibility of upholding to what is "scientific" at that time is a new angle to look into it.
The Church maintaining the Vatican Observatory and at the same time being "anti-Science" is just absurd.
It was like Galileo knew that "heliocentrism" is right but doesn't know how to put a good argument so he expressed his frustration and "threw a tantrum" through a book. He was allowed to explore the "heliocentrism" only theoretically but not publish it as a definite claim. But I read somewhere that he did so by putting this statement in one of the characters of his book, echoing the words of the Pope. He was put in house arrest by local authorities as he was already in his 70s and before he died he asked to publish his other books but was not granted because of that one book. This was all I knew until now and I never really dived into it before.
Will try to read more about it. Thanks!
Tom Holland's new book Dominion sets this record straight too.
The popular view is that the Roman Inquisition tortured Galileo for his enlightened views.
Well argued and insightful. Thank you.
Great job!
Do you happen to have some tips on authoritative sources for all this?
In the end, Galileo ended up agreeing with St. Robert Bellarmine, who firmly believed that the earth is motionless in the center of the universe. Please see below:
“The falsity of the Copernican system must not on any account be doubted, especially by us Catholics, who have the irrefragable authority of Holy Scripture interpreted by the greatest masters in theology, whose agreement renders us certain of the stability of the Earth and the mobility of the sun around it. The conjectures of Copernicus and his followers offered to the contrary are all removed by that most sound argument, taken from the omnipotence of God. He being able to do in many, or rather in infinite ways, that which to our view and observation seems to be done in one particular way, we must not pretend to hamper God’s hand and tenaciously maintain that in which we may be mistaken.” ~ Galileo Galilei, in a letter to Francesco Rinuccini, 29 March 1641 (1)
Notes:
1. Drake, Stillman, Galileo At Work: His Scientific Biography (Chicago, London, The University of Chicago Press, 1978), p. 417.
I want that helmet in the background.
What was the background music?
Well done brother! God love you, Andrew
What is the music you're using?
In Latino-American schools you hear that interpretation all over the place, even we have a stronger catholic background of that in the US (As far I'm concerned US religious tradition is mostly protestant)
Wow this is so sobering and clear. Thanks Brian!
Great job Paul Jamberg!
Wow, never thought of it this way
Church did so much good im world it is crazy to say otherwise.
By the way the Sun rotates around the Earth is equivalent to the Earth rotating around the Sun. There is no motion relative to absolute
It's so easy to read our modern cultural and political biases into history. Modern criminal trials are complicated. Even in the face of a large amount of evidence and witnesses, it can be difficult to get at the full truth of the matter. How much more when it comes to events long past? We shouldn't be convinced by overly simplified stories.
Can u do a video on suffering with Christ or on humility (unless U did and I haven’t seen them)
What is the name Of the music used in the intro 😮?!
See the link in the description. :)
Brian Holdsworth 😅
There is a bit more to this story. As I understand it, Galileo claimed that the earth moves in circular orbits, but the evidence at the time could not confirm it, because the planets do not move in circular orbits but in elliptical orbits. Pope Gregory had set up an observatory in 1580, with Jesuit astronomers in charge, when Galileo was 15. The Jesuits were very careful with their observations and would have been aware that they were not consistent with Galileo's theory, because Galileo's theory was incorrect.
While this is true, it would be rubbish to claim the condemnation was due to Galileo claiming circular rather than elliptic orbits.
Two theses alone were condemned twice, first in connection with his book and then with himself.
* Sun being immobile centre of universe (heretical)
* Earth moving in orbit around Sun - literally "in the third heaven" - and also with a diurnal movement (at least erroneous).
Neither of these theses would have changed by Kepler's rather than Galileo's version.
4:04 I'd like to note, the kind of parallax that Galileo and St. Robert were discussing in the first process is still missing.
Both agreed the stars are in a sphere - or if you find it clearer, a spheric shell.
If there is a parallax from Earth moving around Sun, all of the spheric shell should be showing a uniform parallax. Pisces should be smaller in August-September than around February-March before and after the Sun hides them. And Virgo should be smaller in February-March than around August-September before and after the Sun hides her. The ratio of observed angular distances should vary by comparable amounts.
The result should tell us what the distance of each and all stars is to the Sun in the centre.
However, the parallax or so called parallax observed in the early 19th C. instead tells us, if parallactic, if Earth moves, that stars are different distances, alpha Centauri closer than Vega, Vega closer than Sirius and so on.
On the other hand, if angels move stars, the diversity of parallax in alpha Centauri, Vega, Sirius, could be the diverse "dance steps" in which angels move them.
So, if Earth is still, alpha Centauri, Vega and Sirius definitely are moved by angels - and if their "parallaxes" are really parallaxes, and Earth is moving, the universe is arguably more like a beehive than a shell enclosing comparatively few moving objects.
There are two problems if one assumes it is earth moving:
* if the universe is quasi an infinite beehive, where is the "heaven" in which God is adored by angels and where the risen bodies of the blessed will be;
* parallax would be just the first step in assessing stellar distances, but step after step lead to assessments like furthest seen stars being 13 billion lightyears and some more away from us, meaning they would have started shining those rays towards us 13 billion and some years ago - contradicting the Biblical timeline.
Poor Stalin gets the blame of all the crimes in USSR. Personally, Trotsky was by far more horrifying character and his quotes show is inhumane nature.
You stopped the explanation at him not being able to prove it to the church. What happened after that? Did they kill him for being wrong?
Nope. After everything, he was placed on house arrest in or near the Vatican. Had a servant to run errands, could explore the gardens, just couldn’t be out and about. I believe he could still do some research, but he burned most of his bridges with other astronomers and scientists so not much discussion with them happened.
To many people died by the hand of the church or their life's were completely destroyed. I am relieved that for so long the church lost it's power grip over the people, we can act free and we will be judged in the afterlife. There is no value in being a good Christian by force
th-cam.com/video/mxD9zv9QfpQ/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=BrigadaAntifraude
Ever hear of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and the slaughter going on in Muslim countries these past centuries/
Very informative video. Although I never bought that "anti-scientist Church's attitude" narrative, I did not know much about the topic. Thank you for sharing this.
Two years later and we're still talking about journalists pumping big pharma.
7:05 John Ioannidis constructed a statistical model from which he deduced that most research is incorrect. This was a mathematical analysis of probabilities, he did not evaluate treatment outcome nor did he analyze data from any study and showed that it was false.
The 90% figure does not appear in the title of his article nor in the abstract. It appears, ironically enough, that Brian got the number from a jounalist's sensational headline.
The church did not vet the medical treatement used in their hospitals, the methodology did not exist. The miasmic and humoral theories of disease remained in use until well into the 19th century with no objection by the church in spite of the fact that both were totally wrong.
The Ptolemaic theory was no better supported by emirical observation than Galileo's. He had no evidence for epicycles, but it was an essential element of his theory. The only differnce between the two theories was that the first conformed with Church doctrine and the second did not. Doctrine has always been the measure the church uses to judge science, politics and social movements. The church only yield and adjust doctrine when forced by evidece or social pressure to do so.
So the fact that Galileo was imprisoned for nine years by the church and under house arrest until his death and holds science to a greater standard than what it is capable of with regards to its own theistic arguments... got ya 👍
David Bentley Hart has a great chapter on this in his book Atheist Delusions: the Christian revolution and its fashionable enemies. Tycho was the one who actually got it right lol
I’ve always been bothered by this because i knew that the narrative was not true but I didn’t have any way to combat it.
Great video
Read the Stanford encyclopedia article about Galileo:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/#4
The basic error of the Roman Catholic Church is identifying scientific claims with religious claims. It is an epistemological error with structural or systemic causes. We might even describe this error as a social sin.
Absolutely true about "ahead of your time" meaning. Take that post modernists 😁
The Church is divine/human organism, the Body of Christ. If your Church persecuted someone who was correct on a matter for the sake of defending falsehood, then maybe you should consider the possibility that what you call a church may not be a church at all.
As David Bentley Hart put the Galileo Affair- "What you have are two very egotistical men butting heads." I.E Galileo and the Pope
That's actually very interesting. I must admit I was guilty of this prejudice.
I am more bothered with the Church's persecution of Bible translators and their translations (about which I would also love to be proven wrong).
'Historical revisionism,' he says as he gives the current Catholic version of the Galileo case which they had to conjure up when they fell for the lie that stellar aberration, parallax and Foucault's pendulum supposedly proved the Church of 1616 and 1633 wrong. Now you do not have to take my word for it but maybe by physicists like those below.
‘Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation.’---Bertrand Russell
‘All modern cosmology stands or falls with this concept [the Copernican Principle] being correct, even though, to quote a text approved by Einstein: “We cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any experiment proved the Earth in motion.”’---Lincoln Barnett
The definitive problem for their heliocentric ‘proofs’ that the Earth revolves round the sun, came to a head in the wake of the famous Airy (1870-1) and Michelson & Morley (1887) experiments that failed to find any orbiting of the Earth..
But this lie, that the Church of 1616 and 1633 was proven wrong, is ignored as it suits both in Church and State to who went along with the lie for so long that:
‘I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truths if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.’ ’ --- Leo Tolstoy.
Brian, I love your videos and I share them all the time. I liked (literally and with the thumbs up) this video, but there are some things I wish you researched before going to publication. You miss on some very key points. First, and I think, maybe most important, you accept the exaggeration of Galileo's punishment (though I love that you compare real atrocities to Galileo's plight...but, his plight is greatly exaggerated). Second, you left out that he was given permission by Pope Urban to write and publish a comparison of the two systems with the admonishment that he could not advocate on his own side. But, in his dialogue, Galileo sets those advocating for the Earth-centered model as a character named, when translated to English, 'Simpleton' (which was, even in our time, a great disrespect). Third, you left out the, as of Galileo's time, yet undiscovered work of Brahe and Newton. Fourth, you left out Copernicus. Finally, you failed to place Galileo properly in his time, as we so blithely do with really any historical figure that we don't like. Again, I think your work is suburb. I hope this doesn't come as a criticism to the video or you, just a wish that you had read more before putting the video together.
I appreciate the comment. I'm familiar with all those elements of the story, but I didn't include them because I wasn't trying to provide a comprehensive explanation of what happened. Instead, I was trying to offer a unique contribution to the large amount of work that has already been done by other Catholic apologists on this topic which includes many of the points you made.
Talk about the Giordano Bruno case! It's the Second most citated case of persecution of cience. That Cosmos documentary is a diservice.
Hi Brian great video thanks. I think you would interested in the book Galileo was wrong : The Church was Right : by Robert Sungenis & (Rod ? ) Bennet , a very detailed look the Galileo Affair.
The sun and the universe revolves around the earth. Earth is in the center of the universe.
If anything, the Bible points to Heaven (where the throne of God is) being the centre of all of creation and the rest of creation revolving around Heaven.
The Earth is flat. Eric Dubay.
Very nice video. Just what I was looking for!
Plot twist: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right.