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

[Fake Messiah]

So, Aristotle was wrong in many, many ways. That doesn't make him stupid. it just makes him wrong. But making the first attempt was a crucial step.

And the problem is that people worshipped ancient people like they did Aristotle, and that's why Galileo got in trouble when he looked into the telescope and debunked Aristotle by seeing craters on the Moon because Aristotle said the universe is perfect. The clergy could not comprehend how Galileo could disprove a man they worshipped for hundreds of years by one look through the telescope, so they didn't want to look through the telescope themselves. Galileo also disproved Aristotle's claims that heavier objects fall faster.

And that's how people in the past worked: someone they worshipped said something and it had to be like that, they didn't research it, like Aristotle believed that men have more teeth than women, so it had to be that way because who is anyone to disprove the "great" Aristotle and actually count the teeth.

[polymath257]

So, Aristotle was wrong in many, many ways. That doesn't make him stupid. it just makes him wrong. But making the first attempt was a crucial step.

And the problem is that people worshipped ancient people like they did Aristotle, and that's why Galileo got in trouble when he looked into the telescope and debunked Aristotle by seeing craters on the Moon because Aristotle said the universe is perfect. The clergy could not comprehend how Galileo could disprove a man they worshipped for hundreds of years by one look through the telescope, so they didn't want to look through the telescope themselves. Galileo also disproved Aristotle's claims that heavier objects fall faster.

And that's how people in the past worked: someone they worshipped said something and it had to be like that, they didn't research it, like Aristotle believed that men have more teeth than women, so it had to be that way because who is anyone to disprove the "great" Aristotle and actually count the teeth.

Yes, it was often a problem of taking some 'authority' as indisputable (or nearly so). The clerics *were* happy to disagree with Aristotle when he concluded the world is eternal (and on several other points). But, over time, Christian theology came to be based so much on Aristotelian thought, it was impossible to move away from it without serious questioning of the faith.

But this was a later, Abrahamic development. Aristotle himself often pointed out the tentative nature of his conclusions and often noted the need to make observations and philosophy agree. In fact, Ari was a very keen observer in biological matters.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's fun to see how people from different times and places have rationalized their superstitions - it tells you about their society and, sometimes, their personality....but that's all it is. No christian belief of any kind is now or ever has been based on anything other than the christ myth.

[Belacqua]

it was impossible to move away from it without serious questioning of the faith.

Have you heard of the Oxford Calculators? They were a group of theologians at Oxford University in the 14th century.

Through a combination of physical experiment and mathematics, they proved that much of what Aristotle said about acceleration was wrong.

Of course they were burned at the stake for doing so.

Ha, no they weren't. They had long careers in the church and university, and one of them became Archbishop of Canterbury.

It was never impossible to question what Aristotle said. Universities like Oxford and Paris debated his writings for centuries. 

Galileo's case is far different from the simple religion vs. science parable that it has become for ideologues. 

https://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Rome-Rise...oks&sr=1-1

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Cathol...m-ONeill-1

[polymath257]

it was impossible to move away from it without serious questioning of the faith.

Have you heard of the Oxford Calculators? They were a group of theologians at Oxford University in the 14th century.

Through a combination of physical experiment and mathematics, they proved that much of what Aristotle said about acceleration was wrong.

Of course they were burned at the stake for doing so.

Ha, no they weren't. They had long careers in the church and university, and one of them became Archbishop of Canterbury.

It was never impossible to question what Aristotle said. Universities like Oxford and Paris debated his writings for centuries. 

Galileo's case is far different from the simple religion vs. science parable that it has become for ideologues. 

https://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Rome-Rise...oks&sr=1-1

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Cathol...m-ONeill-1

Yes, Thomas Bradwardine. I am not familiar with any actual observations he made. From what I had read, he noted contradictions in the works of Aristotle in regards to forces and velocity. He also studied uniformly accelerated motion, which is usually attributed to Galileo (although Nicole Oresme also made some of the same observations over in France). It isn't clear to me whether he ever claimed that falling objects undergo constant acceleration, but rather that he studied constant acceleration as an intellectual exercise. The relation between force and velocity he proposed was complicated (it was an exponential relation), but it was important as a way to resolve the contradictions in the Aristotelian corpus.

It is important to note, though, that by the time Galileo came around, the Protestant revolution had caused a lot more concern about doctrine in the Catholic church.

[Belacqua]

It is important to note, though, that by the time Galileo came around, the Protestant revolution had caused a lot more concern about doctrine in the Catholic church.

This is true, but it never led to the demand that people unquestioningly accept Aristotle

At the time Galileo was arguing for heliocentricity, the consensus view among his supporters in the Vatican -- and among most other educated people -- was that Tycho Brahe's system provided the best explanation of the observed astronomy. Brahe is not Aristotle. 

The church's position was that there was no problem discussing heliocentricity, but that it wasn't yet proved. They were correct at the time. Galileo got in trouble for other things.

https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2021/02/17/...-simplify/

[Fake Messiah]

The church's position was that there was no problem discussing heliocentricity, but that it wasn't yet proved. They were correct at the time.

They weren't correct at the time because Galileo had the evidence but Church refused to look at it.

[vulcanlogician]

Galileo's case is far different from the simple religion vs. science parable that it has become for ideologues. 

True. Some myth and hyperbole has been injected into Galileo's story. Some of the church v. science stuff is pomp and spectacle.

But Galileo was placed on house arrest and instructed not to teach his ideas. We can all agree Galileo was a visionary and didn't deserve this kind of treatment, regardless of his demeanor.

[The Grand Nudger]

Galileo believed that whenever there was a discrepancy between observation and magic book, we should go with observation, and that magic book contained truths beyond human reason.

The catholic church held that they and only they were authorities on the matter, and they had no intention of deferring to observation. They believed he was an asshole who had made a them the object of ridicule. He was threatened with torture, imprisoned long enough to make a show of it, then died under house arrest. No amount of jack legged apologetics in all of the world can rehabilitate the church's actions in this.

Their official codex, of 1616, had this to say on the matter-

Propositions to be forbidden: That the sun is immovable at the center of the heaven; that the earth is not at the center of the heaven, and is not immovable; but moves by a double motion.

TRLDR, it wasn't a dispute over which color drapes to hang in the palace. It was a dispute over the credibility of shamans on the public dole.

[Belacqua]

Galileo's case is far different from the simple religion vs. science parable that it has become for ideologues. 

True. Some myth and hyperbole has been injected into Galileo's story. Some of the church v. science stuff is pomp and spectacle.

But Galileo was placed on house arrest and instructed not to teach his ideas. We can all agree Galileo was a visionary and didn't deserve this kind of treatment, regardless of his demeanor.

I don't think anybody here is arguing that Galileo deserved punishment.

I just want to be clear about what he was punished for. He wasn't punished for doing science. 

It just occurred to me that he was a forerunner of Krauss, Dawkins, etc., in that he thought that his knowledge of science also made him qualified to pass judgment on non-science topics. In those days talking out of your field could bring censure, while these days it gets you a book contract.