Kay 17: ^^
Yet why ban all Galileo's books and helicentricism?
And why was Galileo indicted for heresy for promoting helicentric model, because that was what was in his charge

i'll explain again.
On a normal day, scientist were allowed to postulate their ideas, wether the good, the bad or the ugly, they were allowed to argue for or against their ideas inasmuch as they kept within the confines of science. That is why copernicus was a free man and died a free man becos he kept his scientific ideas within the confines of science. Galileo had his scientific arguements freely untill his theology arguement which his opponent's sent to rome with the title "the errors of galileo". With the absence of substantial physical evidence to topple d the literal interpretation the court ruled against galileo and made him vow not to keep away from d arguement after some years galileo was silent until he obtained permission from his friend d pope to write on d two ideas geo and helicentrism. He was granted permission but warn from advocating one above the other and to bring d book 4 review b4 printing. He missed d review then printed d book in a way dat advocated helicentrism and probably insulted the pope too, dat cause a great roar in rome and galileo's friends wrote from rome to warn him dat everyone tinks he insulted d pope. Galileo wrote an apology saying he didnt mean any insult but by then he was summoned to rome to ask him why he advocated helicentrism during d lastest book, he first denied then agreed with that his suspicion on heresy became punishable and he was given house arrest with servants, visitors and sick leave. During his house arrest he researched on kenematics and wrote a book on it which earned him d title 'fada of kenimatics'.
Back to ur question on y is book were placed in d index of banned books. Once a person is found guilty on suspicion of heresy his books are removed from print because of d danger dat d books may contain d said heresy. Until d book is reviewed and found ok it is removed from print. (most times d books are never reviewed). Galileo's were reviewed wen science began to find solid proof of helicentrism and his books were released.

I'm encouraged by your willingness and politeness in this discussion. And I had to take my time to understand you.

Your post is not consistent. Due to the fact that you asserted that the Church was tolerant and open towards new scientific ideas even the revolutionary ones.

That's has influenced my mind to the Church's attitud and I made a presumption that the Church is tolerant towards Science.

While reading your post, a lot conflicted with my presumptions.

1. The Church isn't tolerant towards unorthodox spiritual views.

2. The Church isn't tolerant towards unorthodox scientific views.

your words:

With the absence of substantial physical evidence to topple d the literal interpretation the court ruled against galileo and made him vow not to keep away from d arguement

This means that the Church obviously censored him. Dictating the materials and ideas Galileo can propagate and with the degree of energy he should use. This is clearly anti Science. The Church as a SuperState got an injunction over the most important scientific idea in their time.

Whether or not Galileo was expounding a hypothesis is a scientific discussion not a theological one. It is obvious that the State had to step because this was the point Science and Theology conflicted.

Bellarmine's letter to Father Foscari:

 My Very Reverend Father,

          It has been a pleasure for me to read the Italian letter and the Latin paper you sent me.  I thank you for both the one and the other, and I may tell you that I found them replete with skill and learning.  As you ask for m y opinion, I will give it as briefly as possible because, at the moment I have very little time for writing.

          First, I say it seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and no absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke.  For to say that the assumptions that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still saves all the celestial appearances better than do eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run the risk whatever.  Such a manner of speaking suffices for a mathematician.  But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without traveling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our hold faith by contradicting the Scriptures ….

          Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers.  Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless.  Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can support that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek….

          Third, I say that, if there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true.  But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me.  To demonstrate that the appearances are saved by assuming the sun at the centre and the earth in the heavens is not the same thing as to demonstrate that in fact the sun is in the centre and the earth is in the heavens.  I believe that the first demonstration may exist, but I have very grave doubts about the second; and in case of doubt one may not abandon the Holy Scriptures as expounded by the hold Fathers

Bellarmine issues a subtle threat, that such a matter is a hypothesis because it is dangerous to the knowledge from the Scriptures.

I will prove that the subject matter of the trial is the disagreement of the Church with Galileo's helicentricism. The Commissary Gen committed 2 propositions to Qualifiers (theologians 11 in number) that:

1. The Sun is the center of the world and immovable of local motion, and

2. The Earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but moves according to the whole of itself, also with a diurnal motion. 

The qualifiers' conclusion was that Galileo's heliocentric model was heretical, and Galileo was forced to repudiate his claims and promise not to promote helicentricism itself.

So from the above the church had an issue with the unusual, unorthodox, unconventional, revolutionary idea of helicentricism.

and upon publishing his Dialogue and a consequent trial questioning the book and heliocentricism (which didn't hold any religious stance) made the below statement just prior to his sentencing

"I affirm, therefore, on my conscience, that I do not now hold the condemned opinion and have not held it since the decision of authorities....I am here in your hands--do with me what you please."

The Dialogue was placed in the Index, along with Keplar's works! The church systemically banned books that outrightly declared helicentricism!! So the church wasn't indignant only about violations to its spiritual monopoly but also on all questions on knowledge.

The church felt threatened and sensed a new social order wherein Science stands supreme over even Faith in matters of conflict. The Church's apology over three hundred years later, was an admission of error.

In a few lines, what I have said where: Galileo's case was of science vs institutional religion, free spirit vs authority. A self righteous church overbearing and monopolizing human knwledge.

Kay17 i'm also very happy for u polite tune thruout d discussion, i am happy for u. Pls permite me to attack your posts in bits, first and foremost i wil b grateful if u can give me a link to dat letter by card bella. I have snippets of d letter d controversial part and d concluding, i'll appreciate d whole letter thank u.

Kay 17: I'm encouraged by your willingness and politeness in this discussion. And I had to take my time to understand you.

Your post is not consistent. Due to the fact that you asserted that the Church was tolerant and open towards new scientific ideas even the revolutionary ones.
That's has influenced my mind to the Church's attitud and I made a presumption that the Church is tolerant towards Science.
While reading your post, a lot conflicted with my presumptions.
1. The Church isn't tolerant towards unorthodox spiritual views.
2. The Church isn't tolerant towards unorthodox scientific views.

the church wasnt tolerant to 'unorthodox' spiritual view, that is very correct and i would be stupid to challenge that. But to ur idea dat d church is totally intolerant to unorthodox scientific views i beg to differ. As long as science kept away from theology, d theologians kept away from d scientist. Dat is why i used copernicus as a case study, his views were "unorthodox" but as long as he kept away from theology, d theologians left him alone, he died a free man.

your words:
This means that the Church obviously censored him. Dictating the materials and ideas Galileo can propagate and with the degree of energy he should use. This is clearly anti Science. The Church as a SuperState got an injunction over the most important scientific idea in their time.
Whether or not Galileo was expounding a hypothesis is a scientific discussion not a theological one. It is obvious that the State had to step because this was the point Science and Theology conflicted.

and i reterate that had galileo kept his great discovery to science and away from scripture arguement he would have been okay. The moment d scientist brought his arguement to scripture it is like an invitation for his work to b treated by theologians. Besides d state did nothing in dis case. I clearly xplained that galileo's science became interesting to d theologians because he made it so

Bellarmine's letter to Father Foscari:
Bellarmine issues a subtle threat, that such a matter is a hypothesis because it is dangerous to the knowledge from the Scriptures.

did u read d third point card bella made? The church's literal veiw of astrology could change all it needs is substantial physical proof to contradict it by science. That was all dat was needed but already galileo had decided to "entangle himself in d sacristy"

I will prove that the subject matter of the trial is the disagreement of the Church with Galileo's helicentricism. The Commissary Gen committed 2 propositions to Qualifiers (theologians 11 in number) that:

1. The Sun is the center of the world and immovable of local motion, and

2. The Earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but moves according to the whole of itself, also with a diurnal motion. 

The qualifiers' conclusion was that Galileo's heliocentric model was heretical, and Galileo was forced to repudiate his claims and promise not to promote helicentricism itself.

So from the above the church had an issue with the unusual, unorthodox, unconventional, revolutionary idea of helicentricism.

very unfortunate but i think u are rather oversimplifying things by closing ur eyes to d full stuff. The church wasnt after galileo simply because he ideas were new, d new stuff was by copernicus not even galileo. As far as helicentrism stood in d science realm only d church didnt touch it. If d church was just against any science dat was revolutionary it would have attacked copernicus but it didnt, if she was against d 'unorthodox' it would have been copernicus not galileo. The church didnt just attack simply becos d idea was new or unorthodox or revolutionary, no d galileo case wasn't becos helicentrism is new but becos galileo and co made it a scripture arguement and d church acted as custodian of scripture and used a scripture interpretation arguement. If there was no scripture arguement in d 1st place dere wouldnt have been any judgement. Another revolutionary theory was d big bang and it was invented by a catholic priest, d guy also died a free man becos he knew enought to keep his science from religion, he was neva censured! Galileo's case is d only case i hear pipo use dat is because i think dey are misinformed.

Kay 17:
Bellarmine's letter to Father Foscari:
Bellarmine issues a subtle threat, that such a matter is a hypothesis because it is dangerous to the knowledge from the Scriptures.

this above is false, card bella wasn't commanding dem to call it an hypothesis instead he was comending them for doing so. He said and i quote (accding to d letter u posted)
"first, i say it seems to me that your rev and signor galileo act prudently WHEN U CONTENT urself with speaking hypothetically and not absolutely" that wasnt a threath it was commendation.

I will prove that the subject matter of the trial is the disagreement of the Church with Galileo's helicentricism. The Commissary Gen committed 2 propositions to Qualifiers (theologians 11 in number) that:

1. The Sun is the center of the world and immovable of local motion, and

2. The Earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but moves according to the whole of itself, also with a diurnal motion. 

The qualifiers' conclusion was that Galileo's heliocentric model was heretical, and Galileo was forced to repudiate his claims and promise not to promote helicentricism itself.

So from the above the church had an issue with the unusual, unorthodox, unconventional, revolutionary idea of helicentricism.

and upon publishing his Dialogue and a consequent trial questioning the book and heliocentricism (which didn't hold any religious stance) made the below statement just prior to his sentencing

The Dialogue was placed in the Index, along with Keplar's works! The church systemically banned books that outrightly declared helicentricism!! So the church wasn't indignant only about violations to its spiritual monopoly but also on all questions on knowledge.

this are conclusions u cant sustain! U cant conclude from one case dat d church was totally against any theory that wasn't scripture, for starters u wil have to explain how a church dat hates everything revolutionary commended copernicus wen he propose a revolutionary theory.

The church felt threatened and sensed a new social order wherein Science stands supreme over even Faith in matters of conflict. The Church's apology over three hundred years later, was an admission of error.

in matter of science d church usually let it be. Dat is y card bella was looking 4 physical proof, wen science can provide it d church has been known to change her stance so d above is incorrect.

In a few lines, what I have said where: Galileo's case was of science vs institutional religion, free spirit vs authority. A self righteous church overbearing and monopolizing human knwledge.

monopolising human knowledge? Pls tell me u are joking!

But there are points in which the line between spirituality and SCience fuzzes away on matters of human knowledge.

Note that Galileo's liberal biblical interpretation was a response to a priest's criticism of his idea, the priest claimed that the bible was in support of geocentric model. In the conversation btw those two, there was only one metaphysical question.

The focus of the two trials focussed on the helicentricism question. The Church didn't ask Galileo to repudiate his scriptural interpretation rather the whole helicentric idea. Also unsurprising Kepler's works are in the index. Also note that Copernicius book was banned and in the Index of Forbidden Books.

The people of religion and the people of science contradict each other but ultimately arrive at the same conclusion.

Agiliti:

alchemy, alkali, algebra, alogrithm, and pretty much anything with "al" as it's prefix is arabic by origin. they might not have been the first to practice it, but they perfected it and spread it out, and that directly evolved into what we have here today. even the stars in the sky were catalogued by the arabs, and they still bear the names today
i'm not muslim so i have nothing to gain by this, but it's a known fact baghdad was a centre of learning and inventions for centuries.

next time you want to say im talking nonsense, come with facts

so your equating arabs to islam?

I will remember this the next time I say Islam is an Arab religion and some Nigerian or African Muslim tells me it isn't

advocate666:

And how does arab = muslim?
You are reducing a people to a religion practiced in their group. It's like saying Christianity created Nigeria because lord Luggard and his masters were christians.
Like I said, Islam gave us only hatred and intolerance.

exactly. Same guy will tell you Islam is not an Arab religion it's for all.

becouse.........there's a thin line between the two!

Kay 17: But there are points in which the line between spirituality and SCience fuzzes away on matters of human knowledge.
Note that Galileo's liberal biblical interpretation was a response to a priest's criticism of his idea, the priest claimed that the bible was in support of geocentric model. In the conversation btw those two, there was only one metaphysical question.
The focus of the two trials focussed on the helicentricism question. The Church didn't ask Galileo to repudiate his scriptural interpretation rather the whole helicentric idea. Also unsurprising Kepler's works are in the index. Also note that Copernicius book was banned and in the Index of Forbidden Books.

galileo triggered a chain reaction, wen ur scriptural interpretation is condemned, so will d ideas u support and so will d books condemning d ideas. Since galileos books were banned, his ban will affect those who share d same ideas.

Ubenedictus: galileo triggered a chain reaction, wen ur scriptural interpretation is condemned, so will d ideas u support and so will d books condemning d ideas. Since galileos books were banned, his ban will affect those who share d same ideas.

1. Galileo's scriptural interpretation is separable from both Copernicus, Galileo and Keplar heliocentric model. The model doesn't fundamentally rest on the interpretation, there were mathematical and physical scale arguments which propped it. So its illogical to ban heliocentrism on a negative interpretation.

2. The church was clearly protecting its own spiritual "truth" and if need be against the interest of science's development, which itself proves that knowledge is one, and can't be divided.

3. Against the false image of the church you presented, the Church didn't sponsor and promote scientific development. The church maintained a censor over scientific works as seen of Kepler and Copernicus's works and other scientists.

Kay 17:
1. Galileo's scriptural interpretation is separable from both Copernicus, Galileo and Keplar heliocentric model. The model doesn't fundamentally rest on the interpretation, there were mathematical and physical scale arguments which propped it. So its illogical to ban heliocentrism on a negative interpretation.

true, and galileo scriptural interpretation caused his scientific work to b treated as a theological matter.

2. The church was clearly protecting its own spiritual "truth" and if need be against the interest of science's development, which itself proves that knowledge is one, and can't be divided.

the church may have been protecting its scriptural truth, and her faithful frm what she saw as a wrong hypothesis, so i may give u dat point too.

3. Against the false image of the church you presented, the Church didn't sponsor and promote scientific development. The church maintained a censor over scientific works as seen of Kepler and Copernicus's works and other scientists.

this is a joke, apart from d helicentric stuff, can u give me a list of d scientists work that were censored? U are making a presumption that cant be sustained. Most of d university in those times were both owned and sponsored by the catholic, not to talked of d fact that many of d so called fathers of science are catholic priest and laymen. Ur third point is unsustainable.

The fact that the Church compiled a long index of forbidden books, which included the most pivotal scientific works is good proof that the Church isn't as tolerant as you say it is.

The sponsorship of universities count for nothing if the Church is adverse to the free flow of ideas and knowledge.

In line with the topic: today's Science faces the sam opposition from the Church (inclusive of Protestants)

Kay 17: The fact that the Church compiled a long index of forbidden books, which included the most pivotal scientific works is good proof that the Church isn't as tolerant as you say it is.

The sponsorship of universities count for nothing if the Church is adverse to the free flow of ideas and knowledge.

In line with the topic: today's Science faces the sam opposition from the Church (inclusive of Protestants)

haha, d work on helicentrism is d only scientific work there, so i tink u are ovageneralising