[Serious] Giordano Bruno

[TimOneill]

That response makes no sense as a reply to anything I've said. "Speak for the Vatican"? What are you talking about?
And I have no idea if Mayer was a Catholic or not. I do know that he was a respected historian whose works are regarded as key scholarly monographs on the subject of early modern Catholic jurisprudence and are widely cited by scholars of this period.

Do you actually have anything of substance to say about the evidence I note above or are weak sneers and attempted slurs all you have? Why are so many people here so weirdly irrational?

The website I posted states that archives indicate that he was being questioned (and responding) with regards to science.

Well, he was questioned about his mystical belief in heliocentrism, but that had little do to with science. Bruno was not a scientist, rejected scientific analysis as too limiting compared to his mystical intuitions, scorned actual scientists as mere "geometers" and was regarded as a kook and a "monster" by actual scientists like Galileo and Kepler. He accepted heliocentrism because it fitted his mystical cosmology of boundless uncentred space based on "sacred geometry" and inhabited by planets and stars which were sentient spiritual beings. He didn't actually understand the science behind Copernicanism and in the one place where he tries to give a simple summary of the reasoning behind it, he gets some very basic stuff completely wrong. Bruno used actual science the way modern New Age kooks like Deepak Chopra do - to give his mystical woo some credibility. When it doesn't suit him, he rejects it.

So of course they questioned him about his mystical acceptance of heliocentrism. They questioned him about a lot of things. They questioned him about what clothes he was wearing on certain occasions but that doesn't mean he was executed because of his fashion choices. We know that heliocentrism was not among the reasons he was executed for the reasons I've explained.

I don't think I care about early modern catholic jurisprudence, but I do care about bias.

So do I. But where exactly is the "bias" in Mayer's excellent, scholarly and highly-regarded book? If Mayer was "biased" in some way, why didn't his peer reviewers notice? Why did his academic colleagues not point out the flaws in what he said? Early modern Catholic jurisprudence is relevant here because it tells us that if Bruno had been condemned for his heliocentric beliefs in 1599, we would find references  to this in the 1616 inquiry into Galileo. We don't. There was no ruling on heliocentrism by the Inquisition until 1616 and that was the first time any such ruling had been made.

So tell us exactly what he was condemned for.

I did that at some length and in quite a bit of detail in the long article on the subject linked to at the beginning of this thread.

All bet it included some positions against the supernatural claims of the church.

It did. What it didn't include was anything scientific.

As far as I'm concerned, that in itself (the supernatural) is antiscience.

Okay. That doesn't mean that the mystical kooky stuff that Bruno believed in (magic, planets with souls, sacred geometry) was therefore scientific. The dispute between Bruno and the Church was the clash of one set of mystical kooks with another mystical kook over whose mystical kookery was right. No science there.

I really don't about all of this. You seem to like talking down to atheists about getting facts wrong (in your opinion).

I like helping people to understand history properly. And no - it's not just my "opinion" that some atheists get these things wrong. I'm simply presenting what historians agree is right and showing why. The only people I may "talk down to" are boneheads who can't actually counter what I say, so resort to childish screaming and pathetic smear campaigns. I make no apologies about regarding them with open contempt. Idiots are one thing. Fanatical, immature and hypocritical idiots are another.

 All religion is based on a falsehood. Any acts done in the name of religion should also be considered in that light.

Okay.

Like I indicated in an earlier post, the catholic position is that they didn't kill anyone for heresy, the killing was all done by "others".

No, that's not the "Catholic position". It's the position of one Catholic apologist website. And it's a dumb and sophistic argument.

[brewer]

The website I posted states that archives indicate that he was being questioned (and responding) with regards to science.

Well, he was questioned about his mystical belief in heliocentrism, but that had little do to with science. Bruno was not a scientist, rejected scientific analysis as too limiting compared to his mystical intuitions, scorned actual scientists as mere "geometers" and was regarded as a kook and a "monster" by actual scientists like Galileo and Kepler. He accepted heliocentrism because it fitted his mystical cosmology of boundless uncentred spave based on "sacred geometry" and inhabited by planets and stars which were sentient spiritual beings. He didn't actually understand the science behind Copernicanism and in the one place where he tries to give a simple summary of the reasoning behind it he gets some very simple stuff completely wrong. Bruno used actual science the way Deepak Chopra does - to give his mystical woo some credibility. When it doesn't suit him, he rejects it.

So of course they questioned him about his mystical acceptance of heliocentrism. They questioned him about a lot of things. They questioned him about what clothes he was wearing on certain occasions but that doesn't mean he was executed because of his fashion choices. We know that heliocentrism was not among the reasons he was executed for the reasons I've explained.

I don't think I care about early modern catholic jurisprudence, but I do care about bias.

So do I. But where exactly is the "bias" in Mayer's excellent, scholarly and highly-regarded book? If Mayer was "biased" in some way, why didn't his peer reviewers notice? Why did his academic colleagues not point out the flaws in what he said? Early modern Catholic jurisprudence is relevant here because it tells us that if Bruno had been condemned for his heliocentric beliefs in 1599, we would find references  to this in the 1616 inquiry into Galileo. We don't. There was no ruling on heliocentrism by the Inquisition until 1616 and that was the first time any such ruling had been made.

So tell us exactly what he was condemned for.

I did that at some length and in quite a bit of detail in the long article on the subject linked to at the beginning of this thread.

All bet it included some positions against the supernatural claims of the church.

It did. What it didn't include was anything scientific.

As far as I'm concerned, that in itself (the supernatural) is antiscience.

Okay. That doesn't mean that the mystical kooky stuff that Bruno believed in (magic, planets with souls, sacred geometry) was therefore scientific. The dispute between Bruno and the Church was the clash of one set of mystical kooks with another mystical kook over whose mystical kookery was right. No science there.

I really don't about all of this. You seem to like talking down to atheists about getting facts wrong (in your opinion).

I like helping people to understand history properly. And no - it's not just my "opinion" that some atheists get these things wrong. I'm simply presenting what historians agree is right and showing why. The only people I may "talk down to" are boneheads who can't actually counter what I say, so resort to childish screaming and pathetic smear campaigns. I make no apologies about regarding them with open contempt. Idiots are one thing. Fanatical and hypocritical idiots are another.

 All religion is based on a falsehood. Any acts done in the name of religion should also be considered in that light.

Okay.

Like I indicated in an earlier post, the catholic position is that they didn't kill anyone for heresy, the killing was all done by "others".

No, that's not the "Catholic position". It's the position of one Catholic apologist website. And it's a dumb and sophistic argument.

Last-first, "we turned him over to a civil power": https://famous-trials.com/bruno/265-letter So much for dumb. And it's not the only time I've see the "other" killed, not us position. Regrettable, but still not us.

You might be presenting what historians have said, but they are repeating what catholics have said. catholics are not very forthcoming and truthful when it does not serve their purpose. Because they didn't write it down it was not also a motive/reason, paaalease.

And the "kooky" Bruno is a position. I'll take what I get from Stanford: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bruno/  Not in all ways kooky, includes science, at the least science thought.

It's interesting that the catholics initially denied the execution, then threw a fit at having a statue erected. Hmmm...... something stinks here. Are there records of catholics throwing hissy fits over the execution of other kooks?

BTW, I'm not going to read your "long articles". I find you/your writings quite off putting. But I read that the religious love them.

[Belacqua]

And the "kooky" Bruno is a position. I'll take what I get from Stanford: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bruno/  Not in all ways kooky, includes science, at the least science thought. 

This is from the Stanford page that you prefer:

The authority that Bruno particularly liked to invoke, however, was Scripture. The infinite number of celestial bodies corresponded to “those so many hundreds of thousands [of angels]”—an allusion to Daniel 7:10—“that assist in the ministry and contemplation of the first, universal, infinite and eternal efficient cause” (BOI I, 455)

The celestial or, as Bruno called them, “principal” bodies glided weightlessly within an infinite “receptacle” or “expanse” of aether (BOI II, 110) like specks of dust in the sunlit air (BOL I.1, 262; I.2, 91). What made them move? Their souls.

Which part of this is "science thought," exactly?

BTW, I'm not going to read your "long articles". I find you/your writings quite off putting. But I read that the religious love them.

This tells us everything we need to know about the rigor of your scholarship.

[TimOneill]

Last-first, "we turned him over to a civil power": https://famous-trials.com/bruno/265-letter So much for dumb. And it's not the only time I've see the "other" killed, not us position. Regrettable, but still not us. 

I have no idea what this is trying to say.

You might be presenting what historians have said, but they are repeating what catholics have said. 

Garbage. That is not how historians work.

And the "kooky" Bruno is a position. I'll take what I get from Stanford: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bruno/  Not in all ways kooky, includes science, at the least science thought.

It includes "science thought" the way Deepak Chopra includes quantum mechanics. That doesn't make Chopra a quantum physicist. As I said, Bruno rejected science as too limiting, chided Coperncius for being restricted by mere mathematics, called actual astronomers "geometers" who he said would confirm some of his kooky ideas (they didn't) and then got the science of heliocentrism wrong in his sole simplistic attempt at explaining it. Those of us who have actually read his works and the scholarship about him rather than Googling a couple of websites are pretty clear on this point.

It's interesting that the catholics initially denied the execution, then threw a fit at having a statue erected. Hmmm...... something stinks here. Are there records of catholics throwing hissy fits over the execution of other kooks?

Where and when did they "deny the execution"? And the objection to the statue was due to some nineteenth century politics, which it seems you don't understand.

BTW, I'm not going to read your "long articles". I find you/your writings quite off putting.

Yes, that's usually the reaction of close-minded fundamentalists to correction that they can't refute.

But I read that the religious love them.

Smarter atheists love them too. The ones that actually are open-minded and rational that is, as opposed to the reflex fundamentalists who talk about being those things but just cling to a new set of dogmas and snarl at anyone who disturbs their circle jerks.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Well, he was questioned about his mystical belief in heliocentrism, but that had little do to with science. Bruno was not a scientist, rejected scientific analysis as too limiting compared to his mystical intuitions, scorned actual scientists as mere "geometers" and was regarded as a kook and a "monster" by actual scientists like Galileo and Kepler. He accepted heliocentrism because it fitted his mystical cosmology of boundless uncentred spave based on "sacred geometry" and inhabited by planets and stars which were sentient spiritual beings. He didn't actually understand the science behind Copernicanism and in the one place where he tries to give a simple summary of the reasoning behind it he gets some very simple stuff completely wrong. Bruno used actual science the way Deepak Chopra does - to give his mystical woo some credibility. When it doesn't suit him, he rejects it.

So of course they questioned him about his mystical acceptance of heliocentrism. They questioned him about a lot of things. They questioned him about what clothes he was wearing on certain occasions but that doesn't mean he was executed because of his fashion choices. We know that heliocentrism was not among the reasons he was executed for the reasons I've explained.



So do I. But where exactly is the "bias" in Mayer's excellent, scholarly and highly-regarded book? If Mayer was "biased" in some way, why didn't his peer reviewers notice? Why did his academic colleagues not point out the flaws in what he said? Early modern Catholic jurisprudence is relevant here because it tells us that if Bruno had been condemned for his heliocentric beliefs in 1599, we would find references  to this in the 1616 inquiry into Galileo. We don't. There was no ruling on heliocentrism by the Inquisition until 1616 and that was the first time any such ruling had been made.



I did that at some length and in quite a bit of detail in the long article on the subject linked to at the beginning of this thread.



It did. What it didn't include was anything scientific.



Okay. That doesn't mean that the mystical kooky stuff that Bruno believed in (magic, planets with souls, sacred geometry) was therefore scientific. The dispute between Bruno and the Church was the clash of one set of mystical kooks with another mystical kook over whose mystical kookery was right. No science there.



I like helping people to understand history properly. And no - it's not just my "opinion" that some atheists get these things wrong. I'm simply presenting what historians agree is right and showing why. The only people I may "talk down to" are boneheads who can't actually counter what I say, so resort to childish screaming and pathetic smear campaigns. I make no apologies about regarding them with open contempt. Idiots are one thing. Fanatical and hypocritical idiots are another.



Okay.



No, that's not the "Catholic position". It's the position of one Catholic apologist website. And it's a dumb and sophistic argument.

Last-first, "we turned him over to a civil power": https://famous-trials.com/bruno/265-letter So much for dumb. And it's not the only time I've see the "other" killed, not us position. Regrettable, but still not us.

You might be presenting what historians have said, but they are repeating what catholics have said. catholics are not very forthcoming and truthful when it does not serve their purpose. Because they didn't write it down it was not also a motive/reason, paaalease.

And the "kooky" Bruno is a position. I'll take what I get from Stanford: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bruno/  Not in all ways kooky, includes science, at the least science thought.

It's interesting that the catholics initially denied the execution, then threw a fit at having a statue erected. Hmmm...... something stinks here. Are there records of catholics throwing hissy fits over the execution of other kooks?

BTW, I'm not going to read your "long articles". I find you/your writings quite off putting. But I read that the religious love them.

Prepare yourself for walls of text designed to bamboozle you into thinking he knows what he's talking about

[brewer]

And the "kooky" Bruno is a position. I'll take what I get from Stanford: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bruno/  Not in all ways kooky, includes science, at the least science thought. 

This is from the Stanford page that you prefer:

The authority that Bruno particularly liked to invoke, however, was Scripture. The infinite number of celestial bodies corresponded to “those so many hundreds of thousands [of angels]”—an allusion to Daniel 7:10—“that assist in the ministry and contemplation of the first, universal, infinite and eternal efficient cause” (BOI I, 455)

The celestial or, as Bruno called them, “principal” bodies glided weightlessly within an infinite “receptacle” or “expanse” of aether (BOI II, 110) like specks of dust in the sunlit air (BOL I.1, 262; I.2, 91). What made them move? Their souls.

Which part of this is "science thought," exactly?

BTW, I'm not going to read your "long articles". I find you/your writings quite off putting. But I read that the religious love them.

This tells us everything we need to know about the rigor of your scholarship.

You pulled out two items, good for you.

I'm lacking rigor, ooh .........ouch.

---

I have no idea what this is trying to say.



Garbage. That is not how historians work.



It includes "science thought" the way Deepak Chopra includes quantum mechanics. That doesn't make Chopra a quantum physicist. As I said, Bruno rejected science as too limiting, chided Coperncius for being restricted by mere mathematics, called actual astronomers "geometers" who he said would confirm some of his kooky ideas (they didn't) and then got the science of heliocentrism wrong in his sole simplistic attempt at explaining it. Those of us who have actually read his works and the scholarship about him rather than Googling a couple of websites are pretty clear on this point.



Where and when did they "deny the execution"? And the objection to the statue was due to some nineteenth century politics, which it seems you don't understand.



Yes, that's usually the reaction of close-minded fundamentalists to correction that they can't refute.



Smarter atheists love them too. The ones that actually are open-minded and rational that is, as opposed to the reflex fundamentalists who talk about being those things but just cling to a new set of dogmas and snarl at anyone who disturbs their circle jerks.

The reply didn't pull in all of the prior, the above will look a little strange. (looks like your mistake more than mine)


It was saying that the Secretary of the Vatican State stated the execution was by a civil power. Damned apologists. Here's the link again: https://famous-trials.com/bruno/265-letter

What do you mean "garbage"? Where did they get the history if not from catholics writings and those who wrote about the catholics at the time? After watching the catholics whack people who didn't tow the catholic company line, how much truth and accuracy do you think you'll get? Do we really need to go into how the catholics have a "history" of hiding their uncomfortable truths?

Well, the "deny the execution" was in the Standford attachment. The objection was a catholic objection, catholic politics. If you have a problem with information in the attachment you should probably take it up with Mr Knox (but I seriously doubt you will).

If he was that nuts, why all the sciency/philsophizer accolades and a statue? See section 8: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bruno/#BrunAfte   Like I said, this ain't passing the sniff test.

What fundamentalist? I'm not hear to refute you, but to disagree. I think you're biased, have an agenda and want to hold onto a rebel atheist reputation which seems to be your claim to fame. You're more than welcome to it. But glad to see that you are still quite off putting. I completely expect some more trash talk from you.

What new set of dogmas? If you think I'm a "New Atheist" you've read me completely wrong.

I believe I see Pascals Wager in your future. I must be channeling Bruno.

But I tire of you. Go and declare your victory.

[brewer]

Prepare yourself for walls of text designed to bamboozle you into thinking he knows what he's talking about

He more than likely knows what he's talking about. I think it's just one sided and slanted in religions favor. That position does seem to be how he's made his bones.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Prepare yourself for walls of text designed to bamboozle you into thinking he knows what he's talking about

He more than likely knows what he's talking about. I think it's just one sided and slanted in religions favor. That position does seem to be how he's made his bones.

Tragically that is not so .

[brewer]

He more than likely knows what he's talking about. I think it's just one sided and slanted in religions favor. That position does seem to be how he's made his bones.

Tragically that is not so .

I did like how he pointed out there is a right and wrong kind of catholic. It's so hard these days to tell catholics apart, which to believe, which not.

I think they need to give out score cards.

[TimOneill]

It was saying that the Secretary of the Vatican State stated the execution was by a civil power. Damned apologists. Here's the link again: https://famous-trials.com/bruno/265-letter

Which it was. All executions by the Inquisiton were. But in the context (as far as I can make out via garbled Google translation) he is clearly not saying "they did it, not us".

What do you mean "garbage"? Where did they get the history if not from catholics writings and those who wrote about the catholics at the time? After watching the catholics wack people who didn't tow the catholic company line, how much truth and accuracy do you think you'll get? Do we really need to go into how the catholics have a "history" of hiding their uncomfortable truths?

Do you think historians just take their sources at face value? Seriously? What you do think historians do? No scholar writing on this topic are just "repeating what catholics have said". To think that they would do anything like that is so staggeringly naive that it tells me you have absolutely no idea how history is studied.

Well, the "deny the execution" was in the Standford attachment. The objection was a catholic objection, catholic politics. If you have a problem with information in the attachment you should probably take it up with Mr Knox (but I seriously doubt you will).

 
I have never heard of anyone ever denying the execution happened. And Knox doesn't footnote that comment, so I have no idea what he's referring to.

If he was that nuts, why all the sciency/philsophizer accolades and a statue? See section 8: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bruno/#BrunAfte   Like I said, this ain't passing the sniff test. 

Because "Bruno the martyr for science" became a popular myth that supported a narrative many people were heavily invested in. So did the wider (though more solidly based) idea of "Bruno the martyr for free thought and speech". Recognition that he wasn't a scientist at all and that his philosophy was largely a mystical dead end tends to spoil those stories. And most people invested in those stories and myths were not exactly historians or terribly interested in the reality of who and what he was - he became a symbol.

I think you're biased, have an agenda and want to hold onto a rebel atheist reputation which seems to be your claim to fame. 

"Fame"? I run a blog which is one of my many hobbies. My only "agenda" is getting some people to pay attention to what real historians say about this stuff and what the evidence shows. And it's interesting that the only people who think I'm "biased" just happen to be those with some strong biases of their own. I have no interest in defending Christianity. If you want to attack the Church for things they have done (colonialism, oppression of native peoples, child sex abuse and its cover ups etc.) you won't hear a squeak out of me. But when people mangle history and peddle pseudo historical myths, I show them how they are wrong. I am "biased" toward the accurate and objective analysis of history. That is my only "agenda". It's interesting that when I lambaste Christians for their similar distortions of history they make the same claims that I am "biased" and have an "agenda". See if you can work out what that means.

But I tire of you. Go and declare your victory.

I've been around internet debates for too long to bother with that crap. If I've not managed to get you to see that the Bruno legend is not accurate then all I can say is I've tried. But dismissing detailed analysis of the evidence and expert scholarship by someone who has studied this stuff for 35 years largely because you don't happen to like what they are saying is not rational. Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you have that emotional reaction. Some biases of your own, perhaps?