Galileo
05-14-2009, 04:17 PM
Two Catholics Spew Lies about Galileo, Angels & Demons Starts Friday
By Rolf Lindgren, Defender of Galileo
Tomorrow, Friday, May 15, Ron Howard’s new movie Angels & Demons will appear, starring Tom Hanks. This movie follows up Howard’s previous film Da Vinci Code, both based on novels by Dan Brown.
The Angels & Demons movie is under attack by a couple of Catholics, Joseph Dias of the Catholic Secular Forum with help from Bill Donahue of the USA Catholic League.
You can read their hit piece here:
Angels & Demons: Film scripted in Catholic-bashing
http://www.indiancatholic.in/news/storydetails.php/11616-1-10-Angels---Demons:-Film-scripted-in-Catholic-bashing
My short piece will identify several lies and distortions found in that article about Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). Primary author Dias does not seem to understand that Brown’s book is a novel that contains a mixture of fiction, myths, legends, and historical facts, much like the Bible is a mixture of fiction, myths, legends and historical facts. If Dias had confined himself to sticking to facts about the historical Galileo, then I would be standing mute at this time. But Dias’ lies & distortions about Galileo are presented as facts, and need to be corrected in the interests of history.
LIES ABOUT GALILEO
* Dias writes; “what got Galileo into trouble was less his ideas than his arrogance: he made claims that he could not scientifically sustain.”
This is an outright lie. Galileo turned his manuscript over to the Church for licensing. He was trying to write a book about the system of the world. The Church duly licensed his book, The Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, and certified it for publication in 1632. Then after the book was published, Galileo was arrested for writing it! This arrest had nothing to do Galileo’s arrogance and everything to do with the arrogance of Pope Urban VIII, who ordered the arrest.
* Dias writes, regarding Galileo’s Dialogue of 1632; “Quite frankly, Galileo never got into trouble before he started insisting that the Copernican system was positively true.”
Another boldfaced lie. Galileo got in trouble because the Church changed its mind after Galileo’s book was published; it is as simple as that. Galileo’s book was written as a fictional dialogue and nothing in it was presented as positively true, which is why the book was licensed in the first place. Dias also misses the idiocy of licensing a book with a very large print run for the time (1000 copies), and then trying to ban it after it is already distributed.
It should also be noted the idiocy of requiring books to be licensed in the first place, or that scientists shouldn’t publish theories that need further work before they are proven.
* Dias writes; “Moreover, he presented himself as a theologian, not simply as a mathematician, as he agreed to do.”
This is a total lie. Had Galileo written as a theologian, his book would not have been licensed. The Dialogue does not contain any Biblical or theological arguments at all. Dias has confused the Dialogue with the Galileo’s Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of 1615, which did contain Biblical arguments. In 1615, Galileo was not under any restrictions. Even these Biblical arguments were not theological, but only meta-theological.
DISTORTIONS
* Dias has not even seen Howard’s film yet. He has only seen Brown’s book. The measure of the accuracy of a movie based on a book is supposed to be how accurately it presents the contents of the book. The Dias hit piece is not a book review; it is a movie review. Dias does not know how much of Brown’s book will make it into the movie.
* Dias is all bent out of shape because Brown writes that Galileo was a member of the Illuminati. Well, no, Galileo was not a member of the Illuminati. But remember, Dias is reviewing a work of fiction. Galileo WAS a member of the Society of the Lynx-eyed, the first scientific society. These were educated gentlemen from around Europe who corresponded on scientific topics and many of their ideas were unorthodox; hence they made attempts to conceal ideas which could get them into trouble. The concept of Illuminati is loosely based on the idea of Society of the Lynx-eyed and other early scientific societies.
* Dias gets all worked up because Brown says Copernicus was murdered. This is an error by Brown. But the Church murdered Giordano Bruno in 1600 when he was burned alive at the stake. So all Brown has done is confused Bruno with Copernicus.
* Dias is upset because Brown says Galileo was a pacifist. Dias claims there is no evidence for that. But that depends on what you mean by evidence. There is no evidence that Galileo was pro-war either, and we have 3000 extant letters to, from, and about Galileo written during his lifetime. The majority of these letters were written after the Thirty Years War began in 1618.
* Dias writes; “When he says on p. 41 that Galileo’s “data were incontrovertible,” he is not even close to telling the truth.”
This is another old anti-Galileo canard that gets trotted out periodically. While Galileo did not have absolute proof he was right about the solar system, he had clear and convincing evidence. For example, the phases of Venus proved that Venus orbited the sun, not the earth. The moons of Jupiter proved that the earth was not the center of all heavenly revolutions. And the inclination of the sunspots, i.e., the different angles of rotation of spots on the sun during different times of the year was pretty close to absolute proof that the earth went a round the sun.
* Dias then zeroes in on Galileo’s ideas about the tides like many before him. Galileo reasoned that if the earth moved, then it would cause the water in the oceans to shake. Although gravitation explains most tidal phenomena, Dias seems oblivious to the fact that some tidal effects ARE caused by the uneven motion of the earth. Galileo just did not have enough data in his time to analyze and figure out the exact truth.
* Dias writes: “If Galileo was punished for maintaining that the earth revolves around the sun, then why wasn’t Copernicus punished? After all, Copernicus broached this idea before Galileo toyed with it, and like Galileo, he was also a Catholic. The difference is that Copernicus was an honest scientist: he was content to state his ideas in the form of a hypothesis. Galileo refused to do so, even though he could not prove his hypothesis.”
This is a distortion that borders on libel. Is Dias here claiming that Galileo was dishonest? It sounds like it to me.
* Dias writes; “Quite frankly, Galileo never got into trouble before he started insisting that the Copernican system was positively true. When he first agreed to treat it as a hypothesis, or as a mathematical proposition, he suffered not a whit.”
This is a double distortion. We have already covered that Galileo’s book was written as a fictional dialogue and licensed. Dias does not mention that in 1616, the Church issued a decree, restricting what Galileo was allowed to write about. This was long before his Dialogue was published in 1632.
* Dias writes; “It is easy for us today to say that the Church overreacted in its treatment of Galileo. This is true. But it is also important to note that he was never tortured and never spent a day in prison. He was confined to house arrest in a modest home for nine years.”
The first part of this citation is the understatement of the century. Had Galileo not been able to get his ideas out, we might never have had the Scientific Revolution. The second part doesn’t mention that Galileo was threatened with torture and lost his liberty for the rest of his life.
* Dias thumps his chest because Pope Benedict XIV granted an imprimatur on Galileo’s complete works in 1741. Attentive readers might notice that this is 99 years after Galileo died, and it didn’t do Galileo much good. Dias also forgets to tell us that The Dialogue was not removed from the Index of prohibited books until 1835. That means other Catholic book publishers could not re-publish Galileo’s Dialogue. If you couldn’t get your hands on the 1741 edition, you were SOL.
CONCLUSION
Expect the attacks on Galileo and Angels & Demons to continue. Galileo did not get a fair trial in 1633 by any stretch of the imagination. Galileo was railroaded into “recanting”. Galileo was stifled, but not his ideas. The ideas of modern science spread throughout the world, triggering the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution. We are all the better for it.
WATCH THE ANGELS & DEMONS MOVIE TRAILER:
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b105625_angels_demons_more_backlash_from_vatican.h tml
DID GALILEO GALILEI GET A FAIR TRIAL?
(Even by the standards of his time)
To find out, please click here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123587
By Rolf Lindgren, Defender of Galileo
Tomorrow, Friday, May 15, Ron Howard’s new movie Angels & Demons will appear, starring Tom Hanks. This movie follows up Howard’s previous film Da Vinci Code, both based on novels by Dan Brown.
The Angels & Demons movie is under attack by a couple of Catholics, Joseph Dias of the Catholic Secular Forum with help from Bill Donahue of the USA Catholic League.
You can read their hit piece here:
Angels & Demons: Film scripted in Catholic-bashing
http://www.indiancatholic.in/news/storydetails.php/11616-1-10-Angels---Demons:-Film-scripted-in-Catholic-bashing
My short piece will identify several lies and distortions found in that article about Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). Primary author Dias does not seem to understand that Brown’s book is a novel that contains a mixture of fiction, myths, legends, and historical facts, much like the Bible is a mixture of fiction, myths, legends and historical facts. If Dias had confined himself to sticking to facts about the historical Galileo, then I would be standing mute at this time. But Dias’ lies & distortions about Galileo are presented as facts, and need to be corrected in the interests of history.
LIES ABOUT GALILEO
* Dias writes; “what got Galileo into trouble was less his ideas than his arrogance: he made claims that he could not scientifically sustain.”
This is an outright lie. Galileo turned his manuscript over to the Church for licensing. He was trying to write a book about the system of the world. The Church duly licensed his book, The Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, and certified it for publication in 1632. Then after the book was published, Galileo was arrested for writing it! This arrest had nothing to do Galileo’s arrogance and everything to do with the arrogance of Pope Urban VIII, who ordered the arrest.
* Dias writes, regarding Galileo’s Dialogue of 1632; “Quite frankly, Galileo never got into trouble before he started insisting that the Copernican system was positively true.”
Another boldfaced lie. Galileo got in trouble because the Church changed its mind after Galileo’s book was published; it is as simple as that. Galileo’s book was written as a fictional dialogue and nothing in it was presented as positively true, which is why the book was licensed in the first place. Dias also misses the idiocy of licensing a book with a very large print run for the time (1000 copies), and then trying to ban it after it is already distributed.
It should also be noted the idiocy of requiring books to be licensed in the first place, or that scientists shouldn’t publish theories that need further work before they are proven.
* Dias writes; “Moreover, he presented himself as a theologian, not simply as a mathematician, as he agreed to do.”
This is a total lie. Had Galileo written as a theologian, his book would not have been licensed. The Dialogue does not contain any Biblical or theological arguments at all. Dias has confused the Dialogue with the Galileo’s Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of 1615, which did contain Biblical arguments. In 1615, Galileo was not under any restrictions. Even these Biblical arguments were not theological, but only meta-theological.
DISTORTIONS
* Dias has not even seen Howard’s film yet. He has only seen Brown’s book. The measure of the accuracy of a movie based on a book is supposed to be how accurately it presents the contents of the book. The Dias hit piece is not a book review; it is a movie review. Dias does not know how much of Brown’s book will make it into the movie.
* Dias is all bent out of shape because Brown writes that Galileo was a member of the Illuminati. Well, no, Galileo was not a member of the Illuminati. But remember, Dias is reviewing a work of fiction. Galileo WAS a member of the Society of the Lynx-eyed, the first scientific society. These were educated gentlemen from around Europe who corresponded on scientific topics and many of their ideas were unorthodox; hence they made attempts to conceal ideas which could get them into trouble. The concept of Illuminati is loosely based on the idea of Society of the Lynx-eyed and other early scientific societies.
* Dias gets all worked up because Brown says Copernicus was murdered. This is an error by Brown. But the Church murdered Giordano Bruno in 1600 when he was burned alive at the stake. So all Brown has done is confused Bruno with Copernicus.
* Dias is upset because Brown says Galileo was a pacifist. Dias claims there is no evidence for that. But that depends on what you mean by evidence. There is no evidence that Galileo was pro-war either, and we have 3000 extant letters to, from, and about Galileo written during his lifetime. The majority of these letters were written after the Thirty Years War began in 1618.
* Dias writes; “When he says on p. 41 that Galileo’s “data were incontrovertible,” he is not even close to telling the truth.”
This is another old anti-Galileo canard that gets trotted out periodically. While Galileo did not have absolute proof he was right about the solar system, he had clear and convincing evidence. For example, the phases of Venus proved that Venus orbited the sun, not the earth. The moons of Jupiter proved that the earth was not the center of all heavenly revolutions. And the inclination of the sunspots, i.e., the different angles of rotation of spots on the sun during different times of the year was pretty close to absolute proof that the earth went a round the sun.
* Dias then zeroes in on Galileo’s ideas about the tides like many before him. Galileo reasoned that if the earth moved, then it would cause the water in the oceans to shake. Although gravitation explains most tidal phenomena, Dias seems oblivious to the fact that some tidal effects ARE caused by the uneven motion of the earth. Galileo just did not have enough data in his time to analyze and figure out the exact truth.
* Dias writes: “If Galileo was punished for maintaining that the earth revolves around the sun, then why wasn’t Copernicus punished? After all, Copernicus broached this idea before Galileo toyed with it, and like Galileo, he was also a Catholic. The difference is that Copernicus was an honest scientist: he was content to state his ideas in the form of a hypothesis. Galileo refused to do so, even though he could not prove his hypothesis.”
This is a distortion that borders on libel. Is Dias here claiming that Galileo was dishonest? It sounds like it to me.
* Dias writes; “Quite frankly, Galileo never got into trouble before he started insisting that the Copernican system was positively true. When he first agreed to treat it as a hypothesis, or as a mathematical proposition, he suffered not a whit.”
This is a double distortion. We have already covered that Galileo’s book was written as a fictional dialogue and licensed. Dias does not mention that in 1616, the Church issued a decree, restricting what Galileo was allowed to write about. This was long before his Dialogue was published in 1632.
* Dias writes; “It is easy for us today to say that the Church overreacted in its treatment of Galileo. This is true. But it is also important to note that he was never tortured and never spent a day in prison. He was confined to house arrest in a modest home for nine years.”
The first part of this citation is the understatement of the century. Had Galileo not been able to get his ideas out, we might never have had the Scientific Revolution. The second part doesn’t mention that Galileo was threatened with torture and lost his liberty for the rest of his life.
* Dias thumps his chest because Pope Benedict XIV granted an imprimatur on Galileo’s complete works in 1741. Attentive readers might notice that this is 99 years after Galileo died, and it didn’t do Galileo much good. Dias also forgets to tell us that The Dialogue was not removed from the Index of prohibited books until 1835. That means other Catholic book publishers could not re-publish Galileo’s Dialogue. If you couldn’t get your hands on the 1741 edition, you were SOL.
CONCLUSION
Expect the attacks on Galileo and Angels & Demons to continue. Galileo did not get a fair trial in 1633 by any stretch of the imagination. Galileo was railroaded into “recanting”. Galileo was stifled, but not his ideas. The ideas of modern science spread throughout the world, triggering the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution. We are all the better for it.
WATCH THE ANGELS & DEMONS MOVIE TRAILER:
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b105625_angels_demons_more_backlash_from_vatican.h tml
DID GALILEO GALILEI GET A FAIR TRIAL?
(Even by the standards of his time)
To find out, please click here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123587