[acqq]

So yes, that's exactly an example of the "guilty Galileo and the good church" false narrative.

Many useless claims which don't disprove that his sentence was literally because of:

"heresy" ... "that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world" ... "contrary to Holy Scripture"

And the church forbade his book as "heresy" for 200 years.

He was right. The church was wrong, directly referring to the effing "Holy Scripture" to support its claim and played fighting "heresy", keeping being wrong for 200 years afterwards. It's so clear.

[throw0101b]

> He was right.

Monkeys throwing darts can also (just happen to) be "right" when picking stocks that do well in the market. Galileo had as much evidence in believing Copernicus was right as the monkeys.

If he had simply stuck to simply arguing both sides of an hypothesis in his Dialogue, which he was asked to do by the pope in the first place, it would have saved everyone a lot of trouble. Heck, Kepler's stuff was already around for decades, and Galileo completely ignored it (along with Tycho):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Ch...

If you want to argue 'for science' then Galileo is not a good example: the only thing he just happen to be right about was that the sun was the centre of things, whereas everything else in the Copernican system (including epicycles) was just as messy as in Ptolemy. There was no practical reason to switch systems, and no evidence to think it was correct.

At the end of the day the person who actually got things right was Kepler, and he kept plugging away at the problem because of this belief that the physical world reflected the spiritual realm (KGW XIII, letter 23, 35; 1595)

> In this way, then, the Sun, itself at rest in the middle and yet the fount of motion, carries the image of God the Father and creator. For what creation is to God, motion is to the Sun. Moreover, it moves [the planets] in a fixed place, as the Father creates in the Son. Unless the fixed stars offered a place, thanks to their motionlessness, no movement could exist. I defended this axiom while still in Tübingen. The Sun distributes motive virtue through the medium space, in which the planets are found: just as the Father creates by spirit or by the virtue of His spirit. And from the necessity of these presuppositions, it follows that motion is in proportion with distance.

See Kozhamthadam's "The Religious Foundations of Kepler's Science" and "Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy" by Barker and Goldstein.

Going further, one needs to believe in certain metaphysical assumptions before you can even start doing what we know call science:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Provid...

There were plenty ideas floating around at the time, but ideas are cheap. Galileo certainly made important improvements to telescope technology, but his efforts in moving forward new models (specifically Copernican) were a dead end, and he made no practical difference to things: Kepler was already defending Copernicus in his Mysterium Cosmographicum (1e 1596), and put forward his laws in Astronomia nova (1609), a copy of which he sent to Galileo, which Galileo promptly ignored even two decades later when he published his Dialogue (1632).

[acqq]

You still can't deny: the church was wrong, directly referring to the effing "Holy Scripture" to support its claim.

The Earth was never the center around which the Sun rotated. Not in 1AD, not in 1600AD, not now.

If the church claimed that the "Holy Scripture" says that the Earth is in the center, the church was still wrong, and moreover, the "Holy Scripture" was wrong.

The church can't be right to claim "heresy" to somebody who was right then and is still right now.

[throw0101b]

> You still can't deny: the church was wrong, directly referring to the effing "Holy Scripture" to support its claim.

It was the pope that asked Galileo to write a book in the first place. The Church was so against the idea that… its leader asked a prominent natural philosopher to write about. The book had two imprimatur approvals.

> The Earth was never the center around which the Sun rotated. Not in 1AD, not in 1600AD, not now.

And there was no evidence to support this assertion until 1728 and Bradley with γ-Draconis, and with the first parallax report in 1806 and Calandrelli (a priest) with α-Lyrae/Vega (the actual value he calculated was wrong). It was not a new idea when Copernicus published his book in 1543, nor when Kepler defended it in 1596, nor when Galileo published his Dialgoue in 1623: Aristotle most famously considered it in ~300 BC and rejected it for lack of evidence. Anaxagoras (400s BC) and Aristarchus of Samos put forward heliocentrism.

[defrost]

It was never a grand Science Vs Church issue, not at the time at least, that came perhaps later with legend.

It wan't even the case that the Pope (in person) was mad with Galileo for being used as a Simplicio caricature and figure of fun in his work.

All the data used came from church funded observatories and church backed astronomers, all the main ideas from both sides of the debate came from church funded theorists.

The crux of the dispute and the trial was pretty much that Galileo was a dedicated edgelord who had decades of pissing people off and making enemies on his ledger.

Think less about religion Vs science and more about maverick asshole vs. faction within giant bureaucracy.

Once Galileo had "insulted the Pope" the knives came out and his enemies struck, it was a pure show trial fueled by personal vindictiveness that came from being the target of savage biting insults.

[acqq]

Still:

- the church officially wrote that the Earth is the center

- that the Holy Scripture says so and

- whoever says differently is heretic

and the Earth was never the center.

[defrost]

None of which had much to do with the persecution of Galileo.

The Catholic Church has changed its stance on many things through time, see [history].

In this instance the Church itself had officially requested a presentation be made to demonstrate various arguments for and against different viewpoints .. one of which was that the heavens didn't rotate about the earth.

It wasn't a surprise that such a well known hypothetical should appear in a book commissioned to outline such hypotheticals.