>>>The way I see it, the situation with Galileo (and many other people) had more to do with those people who were in authority at the time than it did with the religion itself.
>
>True. Galileo often is used as a "proof" of religious anti-science by people who profess to be driven by evidence. I wish they'd research the situation with Galileo in that case.
>
>A Cardinal wrote in 1615 that the Copernican system could not be defended without a physical demonstration that the sun does not circle the earth, but the other way around. IOW no blanket opposition to the idea: just a request for substantiation.
>
>Galileo decided that the tides prove that the earth moves around the sun. In 1616 he wrote to the above cardinal insisting that tides are caused by sloshing back and forth of water as a point on the Earth's surface speeds up and slows down as the Earth rotates and revolves around the sun. Meanwhile Kepler postulated correctly that tides are caused by the moon, which Galileo dismissed. Galileo also rubbished Keppler's observation about elliptical orbits, insisting that orbits are a perfect circle.
>
>The problem was that all the other Venetians could see that Venice has two tides daily, but Galileo's theory allows only for one. Subsequent events are predictable, especially after Galileo escalated the disagreement by a treatise that appeared to attack the Pope, losing support of the powerful Jesuits who had been allies until then. Meanwhile he conducted other heated feuds about comets (where he was also wrong) and various other topics, famously ending one argument with a stream of published personal abuse against a churchman.
>
>Galileo ended up on trial because he provoked controversy and attacked people about proofs that obviously were wrong. His enemies reported him to the sort of bureaucrat who to this day would advocate turning cities to glass or the death penalty on any pretext or other stereotyped forms of vengeance against their target du jour.
>
>The timeless lesson is that what goes around comes around (excuse bad pun) but also that you need to watch your back if you attack the rich and powerful, especially if what you are saying is obviously wrong!
>
>FWIW, Einstein mused about Galileo's intolerance and insistence on a theory that was contrary to observed evidence. Einstein didn't believe the suggestion that Galileo was deliberately deceptive, preferring that Galileo was so certain that he made and accepted proofs uncritically out of a desire to show what he knew to be true. Some would accuse global warming scientists of the same today, and if they too insist on proclamations that are demonstrably wrong, they too will pay the price.
>
>Also FWIW, if people want to quote somebody who was scrupulously driven by evidence and hounded by churchmen, they should try Kepler.

A little history with my tech reading! Thanks.