Why is this non-Catholic scholar debunking "centuries of anti-Catholic history"?

alma73

Why is this non-Catholic scholar debunking "centuries of anti-Catholic history"?
An interview with Dr. Rodney Stark.

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/4766/why_is_this_noncatholic_scholar_debunking_centuries_of_anticatholic_history.aspx

Very interesting given its written by a non catholic.

As Fulton Sheen once said, most people hate the Catholic church for that they think it is.

lazybones32

Truth can never be as entertaining as certain versions of events. So like the author himself acknowledges "I don’t think ‘most Americans’ will ever know that this book was written. I can only hope that I will influence intellectuals and textbook writers—maybe." I'd like to read that book but since it is aimed at intellectuals and probably best for referencing, it could make for a dull read.


A few years ago, I was reliably informed by College peers that Galileo was executed by the Church; this 'fact' was backed up by another well-read and intelligent individual. So, even in the Information Age, misinformation covers more ground.
I've also read the accusation that the Church has included the Bible on the Index of censored books that Catholics should not read.

uck51js9zml2yt

we all know that in Ireland if something is said 3 times it becomes a "fact"

El_Duderino 09

lazybones32 wrote:

A few years ago, I was reliably informed by College peers that Galileo was executed by the Church; this 'fact' was backed up by another well-read and intelligent individual. So, even in the Information Age, misinformation covers more ground.

Yeah the catholics didn't kill Galileo, they imprisoned him until his death when he figured out heliocentrism. They chose dogma over the truth and tried to ensure that Galileo's correct interpretation of reality didn't become widespread. They had an opportunity to enlighten the world but preferred ignorance over truth in the case of Galileo and kept him under arrest, but they didn't kill him.

Somehow people read this story and come away with a bad impression of the catholics involved... What was your point again?

lazybones32

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

... What was your point again?

My point is that even in the Information Age, misinformation covers more ground.

Galileo expanded upon Copernicus' and Keplars' work but still couldn't prove the Theory and couldn't answer the strongest argument against it. (Copernicus delayed publishing his heliocentric theory for fear of ridicule from fellow scientists, not because of Church censure)
Galileo was never impeded in his work by the Church but was actually funded by certain Cardinals and had met the Pope numerous times and was on friendly terms with him. His books were okayed by the Church censors and the only caveat placed upon him was that while he could propose his theory, he couldn't say that the Church was wrong - and Galileo was fine with that.

Galileo's downfall didn't come because of any theory. It came after he wrote a book describing a conversation between a sophisticated, intelligent proponent of heliocentrism and a dull-witted, simpleton who held the geocentric view. Had Galileo made the simpleton look less like Pope Urban, this whole thing probably wouldn't have made it into history.
Galileo might have been a great mind but he wasn't a diplomat and was arrogant. To publicly ridicule a prominent figure is bad enough, but to bite the powerful hand that feeds you is never a good move. Had he simply proposed the heliocentric view as a theory and not proclaimed it as a truth - without being able to demonstrate the truth of the claim - he would have been free to continue his work, experiments, inventions and writings and the Church would probably continued to fund some of his activities.

During his trial, Galileo was allowed stay with friends who were Archbishops and Cardinals and every need was taken care of. Living in a Cardinal's villa must have been such an ordeal!
At his trial, even though the implements of torture would have been on a table in the room - as was the custom - they were never used on him or never threatened to be used on him.
He was found guilty, sentenced to house arrest and had to recite seven penitential psalms, once a week for 3 years.
He was allowed move home - a villa in a productive location - and was allowed visitors and had a full complement of servants. The King of Tuscany ordered his ambassador to Florence to regularly check up on him and to report back. I can't remember the exact words used by the Ambassador in one of his reports, but they were along the lines of 'he (Galileo) has received a favourable treatment afforded to few others'.

The perception that Galileo was simply a scientist dedicated to discovering truth who was brutally punished by an evil group wanting to suppress scientific knowledge couldn't be further from the truth. Galileo was an I]can't use word[/I and was punished for publicly ridiculing a powerful man; not for developing other peoples theories.


Main source was "The Medici" by Paul Strathern - an excellent read.


* Galileo wasn't solely funded by the Church but they contributed a good deal.


I think I'll leave out a quote by Galileo, declaring the supremacy of Scriptures, because some people seem to think he was a man who believed in science alone. He only disagreed with one line of scripture that says the earth is the centre of everything.

Adds: geocentric means the Earth is the centre of the Universe; heliocentric means the Sun is the centre. Not meaning to be condescending but just in case anyone doesn't know.

El_Duderino 09

lazybones32 wrote:

Galileo's downfall didn't come because of any theory. It came after he wrote a book describing a conversation between a sophisticated, intelligent proponent of heliocentrism and a dull-witted, simpleton who held the geocentric view. Had Galileo made the simpleton look less like Pope Urban, this whole thing probably wouldn't have made it into history. Galileo might have been a great mind but he wasn't a diplomat and was arrogant. To publicly ridicule a prominent figure is bad enough, but to bite the powerful hand that feeds you is never a good move. Had he simply proposed the heliocentric view as a theory and not proclaimed it as a truth - without being able to demonstrate the truth of the claim - he would have been free to continue his work, experiments, inventions and writings and the Church would probably continued to fund some of his activities.

lazybones32 wrote:

During his trial, Galileo was allowed stay with friends who were Archbishops and Cardinals and every need was taken care of. Living in a Cardinal's villa must have been such an ordeal! At his trial, even though the implements of torture would have been on a table in the room - as was the custom - they were never used on him or never threatened to be used on him. He was found guilty, sentenced to house arrest and had to recite seven penitential psalms, once a week for 3 years. He was allowed move home - a villa in a productive location - and was allowed visitors and had a full complement of servants. The King of Tuscany ordered his ambassador to Florence to regularly check up on him and to report back. I can't remember the exact words used by the Ambassador in one of his reports, but they were along the lines of 'he (Galileo) has received a favourable treatment afforded to few others'.

That's actually really interesting information but it still doesn't reflect well on the catholics.

The torture objects were literally 'on the table' but they never used them ON HIM. Ah I had it all wrong as I thought this was an example of the catholics using fear and intimidation to make sure nobody challenged their authority.

'Maybe they were frightened of Fr Jack because he always had that stick, and he'd be waving that stick, but he'd never hit them with it' - Fr Dougal Mcguire

Right. Sounds like the catholics involved, behaved really badly. Would you agree or do you think it's the kind of thing they should have been doing then or should be doing today?

lazybones32

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's actually really interesting information but it still doesn't reflect well on the catholics.

The torture objects were literally 'on the table' but they never used them ON HIM. Ah I had it all wrong as I thought this was an example of the catholics using fear and intimidation to make sure nobody challenged their authority.

'Maybe they were frightened of Fr Jack because he always had that stick, and he'd be waving that stick, but he'd never hit them with it' - Fr Dougal Mcguire

Right. Sounds like the catholics involved, behaved really badly. Would you agree or do you think it's the kind of thing they should have been doing then or should be doing today?

It's so refreshing to cite historical fact only to have it replied to with Fr. Ted quotes:rolleyes: It really makes posting and replying feel like such a valuable use of time.

Now, instead of me getting sidetracked by your little diversionary games of condoning or condemning the protocol used by people in Italy a few centuries ago, can you offer any refutation to what I've provided about misinformation regarding Galileo on this "centuries of anti-Catholic history" thread?

El_Duderino 09

lazybones32 wrote:

Now, instead of me getting sidetracked by your little diversionary games of condoning or condemning the protocol used by people in Italy a few centuries ago, can you offer any refutation to what I've provided about misinformation regarding Galileo on this "centuries of anti-Catholic history" thread?

No no. I won't refute anything you said. I found it really interesting, in fact. Why would I try to refute it? The catholics behaved like precious tyrants, imprisoning and threatening torture at the slightest insult or challenge, as you pointed out. But they did not kill Galileo. I think we're in complete agreement.

topmanamillion

Haha and the catholicworldreport has no hidden agenda at all!

lazybones32

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No no. I won't refute anything you said. I found it really interesting, in fact. Why would I try to refute it? The catholics behaved like precious tyrants, imprisoning and threatening torture at the slightest insult or challenge, as you pointed out. But they did not kill Galileo. I think we're in complete agreement.

Nice try!

sbsquarepants

lazybones32 wrote: »

Had he simply proposed the heliocentric view as a theory and not proclaimed it as a truth - without being able to demonstrate the truth of the claim .

:eek::eek::eek:

If ever there was a cut and dried case of do what we say, not what we do, this is it!

El_Duderino 09

sbsquarepants wrote:

If ever there was a cut and dried case of do what we say, not what we do, this is it!

I presumed the irony would be totally lost on the poster. It does demonstrate the catholics desire to monopolise claiming truth without evidence.

El_Duderino 09

lazybones32 wrote:

Nice try!

Your willingness to gloss over the brutality of the catholics involved, doesn't take from the interesting content of the post on Galileo's treatment. I thank you for that.

lazybones32

How can I gloss over the brutality of the Catholics involved when there was no brutality involved?

I've gone full-circle and shown to you and those who read this thread, that even in the age of information, misinformation gathers more ground. Even when presented with information, some folk drop the stick they were trying to beat people with and revert to throwing their insignificant stones. And to that I say, I'm rubber and you're glue...

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

How can I gloss over the brutality of the Catholics involved when there was no brutality involved?

I've gone full-circle and shown to you and those who read this thread, that even in the age of information, misinformation gathers more ground. Even when presented with information, some folk drop the stick they were trying to beat people with and revert to throwing their insignificant stones. And to that I say, I'm rubber and you're glue...

If he hadn't bent the knee what do you think would have happened ?

El_Duderino 09

lazybones32 wrote:

How can I gloss over the brutality of the Catholics involved when there was no brutality involved?

They took away his freedom. That's not normal behaviour. How far are you willing to go to pretend that wasn't tyrannical behaviour?

lazybones32 wrote:

I've gone full-circle and shown to you and those who read this thread, that even in the age of information, misinformation gathers more ground. Even when presented with information, some folk drop the stick they were trying to beat people with and revert to throwing their insignificant stones. And to that I say, I'm rubber and you're glue...

How do you think the Galileo story looks for the catholics? Being honest.

marienbad wrote:

If he hadn't bent the knee what do you think would have happened ?

... What indeed?

Manach

I've read about two books of the author. I've enjoyed his work, a bit populist to my taste. But he presents a readiable account of various eras and as such any effort to raise the profile of history (to my biased point of view) is to be welcomed.

Eugene Norman

lazybones32 wrote: »

How can I gloss over the brutality of the Catholics involved when there was no brutality involved?

I've gone full-circle and shown to you and those who read this thread, that even in the age of information, misinformation gathers more ground. Even when presented with information, some folk drop the stick they were trying to beat people with and revert to throwing their insignificant stones. And to that I say, I'm rubber and you're glue...

Well victors make history. And the Catholic version of history can't survive Anglo Saxon hegemony.

My atheist reading of history tends to confirm the op's book, which I might well read.

Eugene Norman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They took away his freedom. That's not normal behaviour. How far are you willing to go to pretend that wasn't tyrannical behaviour?



How do you think the Galileo story looks for the catholics? Being honest.



... What indeed?

It's all fairly minor stuff by the standards of the day, and later Protestant treatment of heretics. For instance.

lazybones32

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Well victors make history. And the Catholic version of history can't survive Anglo Saxon hegemony.

My atheist reading of history tends to confirm the op's book, which I might well read.

Ignorance isn't as excusable when so much information is literally at one's fingertips. Maybe people just don't want to know?...

If you do read the book, let me know how it goes, please. I'm kind of interested from an enthusiasts perspective but I find books dedicated to academic pursuit only, a bit of a bore.

El_Duderino 09

I asked

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

How do you think the Galileo story looks for the catholics? Being honest.

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

... What indeed?

Was this your answer?

Eugene Norman wrote:

It's all fairly minor stuff by the standards of the day, and later Protestant treatment of heretics. For instance.

Surely a god could transcend the standards of the day? It's hard to see the hand of a god at work in this story though. Not a god worth worshiping at least. Maybe you see it as the kind of behaviour you think your god would he happy with. Is that the case?

Eugene Norman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I asked






Was this your answer?



Surely a god could transcend the standards of the day? It's hard to see the hand of a god at work in this story though. Not a god worth worshiping at least. Maybe you see it as the kind of behaviour you think your god would he happy with. Is that the case?

I'm going to have to explain the word atheist to you, huh?

I'm not a believer. I said that already. I am interested in history though which is why I clicked on this thread.

El_Duderino 09

Eugene Norman wrote:

I'm not a believer. I said that already. I am interested in history though which is why I clicked on this thread.

Oh yeah. It was someone else who said that. Fair enough.