Joseph Freymann is Sloppy on the Galileo Case

The Crusades, the Inquisition and Galileo w/ Joseph Freymann
The Michael Lofton Show | 7.XII.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy-05JYSYIk

I'm commenting only on the Galileo case. I trust his view on the Crusades and the Inquisition is fair enough.

"had said that if the 21:24 facts of science seem to contradict scripture in certain places then script may need to be reinterpreted"

Ouch ... sloppy citation.

Science as an institution deciding on the facts and then presenting them.

No. Science as a monolithic institution with ONE faculty per subject didn't exist. Philosophy were competing institutions.

Then, he did not only say that one could be wrong on exegesis, in the same breath he said it could also be the philosophy that was wrong.

The criterium was experience and logic as in solid proof.

"he insisted on teaching as a law 21:43 Heliocentrism which was really just a theory um he was free to consider it a 21:50 theory but he crossed the line when he against the church's wishes stubbornly 21:56 taught it as a law"

I think the correct view of the Church's wishes was, he was at liberty to write a dialogue, but in it he should give at least equal weight to the Geocentric evidence. In other words, he was required at least some benevolent neutrality, in order to not fall afoul of a decision which already in 1616 had stated that Heliocentrism was an error or a heresy.

I don't know what you mean by "teach it as a law" since in his day the gradation "hypothesis, theory, law" didn't exist as it does now. It's like saying "you are allowed to considere the dog the same family but not the same genus as the wolf" (very hypothetic example, contrived even), when this was before Linnaeus.

"the church overreacted they subjected him to a 22:15 trial right and they said that the only way to understand certain chapters or 22:22 certain verses in the Old Testament that indicate heliocentrism"

Geocentrism?

"is the literal way and they should should have known 22:29 better because even Augustine centuries before had said that there was room for reinterpretation of of scripture"

Not in the absence of solid proof and especially not in the presence of solid exegesis.

This had already been established in 1616, back when Galileo was a sidekick to Foscarini from the PoV of the Inquisitors.

"but why did they overreact it was because of the 22:42 Protestant Reformation see Along Comes Luther 1517 95 Theses and what does he 22:49 do, he starts accusing the Church of being anti-scripture of of keeping the 22:54 masses from knowing the Bible right um and so what the church was being very careful during The Counter Reformation 23:01 of they were being careful to not despise Scripture right that's why they 23:07 were not eager to have Galileo Teach as a law something that seemed to 23:14 contradict the literal interpretation of Scripture"

As I remarked to a Protestant fundie.

Joshua 10 verse 13 could theoretically be phenomenological language.

But Joshua 10 verse 12 includes a word by Joshua, which was not identic to the prayer he had said to God, and which was the miracle working word on God's behalf.

As God is the Creator, He should be able to adress a direct divine command directly to the things that need to behave in a manner other than previously.

This means, if He inspires a man to miracle working words, that should apply to these also.

If this was not so here, it was the ONLY place in all of Scripture, a big anomaly, where sth other needed to be adressed than was adressed and it was still the word of a miracle worker.

"they would however have embraced it if he had come up with 23:20 conclusive evidence which he didn't have which he didn't have and the last thing 23:25 I'll say about Galileo is not only did he not have the evidence yet which we do now but he was partly wrong he was 23:33 partly wrong"

If you are right, he was still asked to abjure sth as "at least an error" which would then be true.

And remember, the form of the condemnation of the theses is such as that of the condemnation of Feeney.

You will gladly say that Feeney was wrong, because he was condemned, even if he was not required to directly abjure the thesis or theses he was condemned for, but you will pretend Galileo was at least partly right in what he was required to abjure, even if he actually did abjure.

As far as the Church "would gladly have embraced" that's not exactly the tone of Cardinal Bellarmine, and while a different one has been attributed to Cardinal Baronius, it's on shady grounds.

And "if he had had the evidence" ... first, this does not cut the condemnation of sth as a theological error rather than as unproven science, and punishments reserved for theological error, second, where do you presume that evidence has been given since?