 |
|
The planned statue is to stand in the Vatican gardens near the apartment in which Galileo was incarcerated while awaiting trial in 1633 for advocating heliocentrism, the Copernican doctrine that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Nicola Cabibbo, head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and a nuclear physicist, said: “The Church wants to close the Galileo affair and reach a definitive understanding not only of his great legacy but also of the relationship between science and faith.”
400 years? What took you so long?
Did they consider Galileo might not want a statue of himself erected within the walls of the vatican ?
Sounds like the church is doing some preventive maintenance in order to keep some followers and maybe get some new ones. i.e. Get some more money from sheep.
Wha-wha-what!
The Vatican! What an insult! The fact that the statue will be in the Vatican is even worse.
If the pope wants to honor Galileo they should donate the statue to a astrological organization and let it be seen by the people who respect Galileo’s work.
Next, they’ll want to put up a statue of Giordano Bruno, just to try and wash the blood of their dirty hands.
pj
Like the Jews putting up a statue of Hitler in Jerusalem as sign of forgiveness and reconciliation with the German people. The mind reels!
Leave it to the Vatican to find a way, 400 years later, to add insult to injury. Thanks, Pope but, no thanks.
Now, if the Vatican would like to make a sizable $$$ contribution to leading astronomical societies, that’s putting your Forgive Us, Galileo money where your mouth is instead of a freaking statue.
#5, Sinn Fein, I was unaware that Hitler was put on trial in israel and only escaped death in the fire by swearing off his sciencetific belief.
somehow, I think, your analogy is less than analogous…
pj
Maybe the Vatican could put up a statue of Hitler in the Vatican garden since he actually practised more of what the Catlick church did during Galileo’s time.
Please refrain from saying ‘erect’ and Vatican in the same sentence. That is a sin.
Wow… what an insult. Perhaps if they added a second statue of a pope kissing Galileo’s butt for screwing him over so bad.
Is this statue going to remind the current Pope that he is, in fact, fallible?
Eh, well, he got in trouble for calling the Pope a simpleton, and for his otherwise arrogant @hole like behavior, not for his science. Which was mediocre.
A fun, but fictional, coverage with an academically solid background can be found in the “Ring of Fire” series, “1634: The Galileo Affair”.
To parallel Joe Hill’s instructions about distributing his ashes anywhere but Utah after his execution – I believe Galileo wouldn’t want to be caught dead inside the Vatican.
All “Religion” is MADE UP !!! See the recent story suggesting that Moses was “Doped UP” when he saw the “Buring Bush” and “Spoke with God” !!! Most of these early “Mystics” with either drugged or had BRAIN TUMORS !!! So much for “Visions” on the road to wherever !!! And all the “Organized Religions” (really ORGANIZED CRIME) are CULTS and SHOULD BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS !!! Stay away, keep your children away (and we know why) and keep you wallets closed, and then maybe humanity can make some progress !!!
# 13 JimD said, All “Religion” is MADE UP !!!
And you just made THAT up.
For Pete’s sake! Everything humans do is “made up.”
I think it is great that the Catholics are honoring Galileo. So what if they opposed him back then? The status quo almost always opposes change.
If some currently accepted scientific theory was proven wrong now, you can bet the (supposedly) “objective” scientific community would oppose it strictly for emotional reasons.
# 10 Improbus:
The pope is not phallible!
pj
I guess better late than never.
# 16 TonyB said,
I guess better late than never.
You guys act like Vatian just finally accepted Galileo!
A did a quick check on Google — the ban was lifted on his theories in 1718. They erected a monument to honor him in 1737.
http://tinyurl.com/7e6yk
I’m fine with you criticizing the Catholics. (I do it myself.) But, c’mon, at least try to be intellectually honest about it.
#14 Greg Allen
“If some currently accepted scientific theory was proven wrong now, you can bet the (supposedly) “objective” scientific community would oppose it strictly for emotional reasons.”
Really? C’mon Greg. You sound like you don’t understand the most basic concepts of science.
Yup. The Vatican feels better putting up a statue to someone they vilified instead of helping that single mother they insisted couldn’t use birth control or later have an abortion. Money well spent in their eyes.
And about time.
Since the Vatican is making amends where is the statue of William Tyndale? Something to apologize for the Inquisition in general? Perhaps they will place Galileo’s statue next to Joan of Arc and build a mound using skulls of hundreds of the nameless people murdered for heresy or blasphemy. If you want me to believe the Pope is sorry, start by denouncing the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”.
“If some currently accepted scientific theory was proven wrong now, you can bet the (supposedly) “objective” scientific community would oppose it strictly for emotional reasons.”
Wrong there Greg. It’s the scientific community that has historically thoroughly tested any claims and accepted resultant proof, while the theologic community has shunned all contrary claims and thoroughly opposed and denied supporting evidence. It’s understandable, because they have everything to lose and wont easily give up the lie that validates them, while a scientist must simply accept the change as an improvement and a step forward.
#18 & #23
Hi there, just wanted to point out that, even if that’s the reigning opinion (science beeing always just “objective”), folks like Thomas Kuhn think differently. He basically states that once on a “paradigm” you don’t judge the model you’re on, until too many inconsistencies show up. He takes into account some more sociological aspects of the scientific comunity and, ultimately reasons that, because from inside of a paradigm you cannot judge another one (there’s no basic assumtions in common), the choice between the two is an irrational one.
Please note, before the bashing begins, that I’m deeply religious (commited to the church of FSM). No, seriously, it’s not about science or religion beeing better than the other. But not seeing the limitations of science (or should I say, of scientists, actually) seems a little dangerous to me.
ah, #24, jmexico, very good observation, however, you can’t deny that in the large scale of things, science is “the new kid on the block”, the new paradigm and religion is the old thought model that has so much trouble overcoming it’s limitations. Not only do religious people have trouble thinking outside their box, they don’t actually want to because it would mean a) giving up the cozy feeling of having special devine protection and b) giving up power.
But actually: you cannot apply scientific methods to religion because religion is utterly un-scientific. Science relies on knowledge, religion defies it.
pj
What’s really funny about this story is that the Times cited Solange Strong Hertz, an utter crackpot who advocates geocentrism and thinks electricity is Satanic.
I expanded on this curious happening here:
http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com/2008/03/galileo-story-in-times-references-ultra.html
# 5 Sinn Fein said,
Like the Jews putting up a statue of Hitler in Jerusalem as sign of forgiveness and reconciliation with the German people.
Not quite. It would be more like Hitler putting up a statue to honor the Jews
# 17 Greg Allen said,
You guys act like Vatian just finally accepted Galileo!
A did a quick check on Google — the ban was lifted on his theories in 1718. They erected a monument to honor him in 1737.
The *ban* may have been lifted on this theories in 1718, but they did not *accept* his theory that the Earth was not stationary until 1992 (at least officially).
Condamnation of Galileo.
In 1633, Galileo was condemned by the Church for biblical and scientific reasons. Subsequently, science gradually proved that Galileo’s theory was correct.
I reconsidered the ultimate phase of the trial of the astronomer: the contradiction of his new thesis with regard to the biblical verses sustained by the Church.
In my French book “Entre Galilée et l’Église : la Bible” (Between Galileo and the Church, the Bible…) I analyse the conflicting verses. And I demonstrate, through a comprehensive semantic study, that in the Hebrew and Greek Texts, the sun does not turn around the Earth, contrary to what the versions assert. I conclude that if the translations of the Bible had been faithful to the original Texts, Galileo would not have been condemned for “having held and believed a doctrine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture.”
As a result of his study, I clarify the many debates held through the centuries and endeavour to align the translations of the Bible with their original Texts and to officially rehabilitate Galileo.
Joël Col