[Serious] Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.

[Belacqua]

What made him "not qualified to pass judgment"? Who IS qualified to make such judgments while others are not?

Obviously modern people who don't believe theological arguments think that no one is qualified, or that everyone can make up his own mind. 

In most fields, people are considered qualified if they know what they're talking about. Every field has gatekeepers, for better or worse. In Galileo's time theological issues were decided by a committee of people who were considered experts, and amateur opinions were weighed and judged by these experts. 

In the case of modern scientists, like Krauss, Sagan, Tyson, Hawking, etc., we see them writing confidently about history or philosophy and displaying that they aren't qualified because what they say is silly. Krauss's chapter on philosophy is laughable, and Sagan made numerous errors of fact when he tried to talk about history. So they demonstrate they are not qualified because they show they don't know what they're talking about. Just because science is considered the modern arbiter of truth doesn't mean they can make shit up in other fields.  

I think he was punished for doing science. It's just that it's not as simple as that. There were other aspects of Galileo's work and character with which the church took issue. 

Granted, it's not simple. If he had published all his theories and observations as theory or thought experiments, with no reference to how this affected Bible interpretation, he probably would have avoided trouble. Pope Urban had been a friend and supporter and was willing to listen to reason, until Galileo's public challenges made this impolitic. From our modern point of view of course he should not have had to worry about politics -- science should be pure! -- but every era has its authorities which it is not wise to provoke. 

Let's put it this way: he could have done his science if he had done so in a more diplomatic way. This might have entailed more disclaimers or pretending that he was just thinking out loud. I agree that scientists shouldn't have to be skilled at diplomacy, but to get an audience and a hearing, they have to know the ropes, then and now. A modern scientist who insulted the people who employ and fund him might find himself out of a job fairly fast. Modern science depends on for-profit journals and funding from corporations and the Pentagon. These people may be better gatekeepers than the Vatican, but they show that science is not and never has been pure.

There's a historian called Jeffrey Kripal who does research on unexplained or mystical phenomena, and how these have affected religion. He describes how apparently similar phenomena appear through history but get explained differently depending on the time and place. So a fast-moving ball of light might be called an angel in one culture and a UFO in another, but such things occur with some regularity throughout history. Visits from recently dead people and good advice from strange visitors seem to be surprisingly consistent things through history. He is carefully agnostic on saying what causes these things, whether they are hallucinations to which we are prone, or any other theory of origin. 

As he has published on these things, and given lectures at different universities, he says that he has been contacted by hundreds and hundreds of people who have similar experiences but keep them quiet. He is an academic who writes academic books, so he is hearing from other educated people, including STEM people who are skeptics and atheists. In some cases hard scientific research has begun due to personal mystical inspiration. He says that although these experiences are surprisingly common, nearly everyone keeps them private because they know that speaking up about them would be rejected by the professional consensus. In other words, science is self-censoring due to a fear of straying from the majority view of what MUST be true. There are no professional inquisitors, but there is a real chance of losing your credibility and your job. 

Anyway, I should have known better than to bring up Galileo because such discussions always end the same way. He is FAR too important as an ideological symbol and martyr for us to expect a careful assessment of history on a forum like this one.